Who Would You Select Among the 2013 Poker Hall of Fame Nominees?

In a rush today and so just thought I’d post a quick one noting the announcement of the 10 finalists for this year’s Poker Hall of Fame. I’ve had the honor in the past of being one of those called upon to vote in this process, and as I look at the finalists for this year I’m again thinking about how difficult a task it will be when it comes to deciding between them.

As you’ve probably read elsewhere, the following players all made this year's list of finalists: Chris Björin, Humberto Brenes, David Chiu, Thor Hansen, Jennifer Harman, Mike Matusow, Tom McEvoy, Carlos Mortensen, Scotty Nguyen, and Huck Seed.

Of those, McEvoy and Nguyen have both been nominees for each of the past five years -- indeed for every year since they instituted this new process by which fans were able to nominate candidates over at WSOP.com and then the panel of living Hall of Famers and poker media then vote on finalists culled from those who were nominated. Harman has also been nominated each of the last four years.

Meanwhile four of this year’s nominees are back for a second go-round, with Björin, Chiu, and Hansen on the ballot for a second consecutive year while Seed is on for a second time after being a finalist once before in 2011. The other three candidates this year are all first-time nominees -- Brenes, Matusow, and Mortensen.

Matusow won his fourth WSOP bracelet this past summer and has the unique distinction of also having made a couple of WSOP Main Event final tables (in 2001 and 2005). Mortensen of course won the WSOP ME back in 2001 and very nearly made another final table this year before being ousted in 10th.

Brenes, meanwhile, might surprise some as a nominee, but I knew his nomination was a distinct possibility after learning about a groundswell of support for him when at LAPT Peru a couple of months ago, something I noted in one of my reports from Lima for the PokerStars blog. Brenes’s standing in that part of the world as an important ambassador of the game is not unlike that of Hansen in Norway where Hansen is viewed as the “Norwegian Godfather of Poker.”

Interestingly, six of the 10 nominees were born outside of the U.S. (Björin, Brenes, Chiu, Hansen, Mortensen, and Nguyen). Four won WSOP Main Event titles (McEvoy, Seed, Nguyen, Mortensen). And all 10 have won at least two WSOP bracelets.

Gotta think McEvoy, Nguyen, and Harman will have an edge when it comes to the voting, given their having been on ballots for several years running by this point, but like I say those voting will have a tough decision to make. Only two at most will be voted in to join the other 44 already inducted in the Poker Hall of Fame.

Say you could only pick two of these candidates... how would you cast your vote?

Boredom, Terror, or None of the Above

Not sure who was the first to describe no limit hold’em as “hours of boredom and moments of sheer terror,” although I believe it was probably Tom McEvoy who first uttered the line in his 1995 book Tournament Poker. Whatever its origin, the phrase has probably edged over into poker cliché territory by now, sidling right up next to “chip and a chair.”

I wonder how appropriate the phrase is, actually. I understand, I suppose, how it might accurately describe a certain type of player’s approach to NLHE tourneys and/or perhaps cash games. And I also see how the phrase includes a bit of (probably purposeful) hyperbole, with “boredom” and “terror” jokingly standing for the differing activities of watching others play hands and playing a big pot oneself.

Was playing some pot-limit Omaha again yesterday ($50 buy-in), and as usual found myself getting involved in lengthy sequences of smallish pots ($1-$3), a few medium-sized pots ($5-$15), and then the occasional monster ($50-$100 and more). It occurred to me that to an untutored observer, the game might well look like it well exemplifies that “hours of boredom and moments of sheer terror” idea.

But the fact is my experience of the game is nothing like that at all.

I suppose that in order to figure why this is -- why, that is, I don’t sense the boredom/terror dichotomy so much in PLO -- we might consider those two fundamental differences between PLO and NLHE, namely, the difference between Omaha and hold’em, and the difference between a pot-limit game and a no-limit game.

Starting with four cards instead of two certainly adds a thick layer of uncertainty onto every situation in PLO that tends to keep even the most mundane hand from being boring (to me, anyway). That’s not to say that there aren’t very familiar or “obvious” situations in PLO that tend to play out the same way (and thus perhaps cause interest to wane). But on the whole, I am consistently fascinated by PLO, much more so than by NLHE. (I understand, of course, that hold’em players find much that is fascinating about their game, too.)

The difference between pot-limit and no-limit games might seem the less significant of the two, but in fact, I think this might be the difference that primarily prevents PLO from exhibiting that stark contrast between “boredom” and “terror” that some say happens in NLHE. That’s because the pot-limit restriction means one never suddenly becomes in danger of risking one’s entire stack without advance notice.

If the players are playing with full buy-ins (e.g., 100 big blinds), a series of actions -- raises and reraises -- is always required in order to get to that monster pot. Sure, there will be hands that play out in strange, unpredictable ways, and one might be surprised by the end to find all of his or her chips in the middle and at risk. But there’s always adequate warning before we get to that point, thanks to the pot-limit format.

Of course, what I really might be talking about here could simply be the difference between knowing what the hell is going on -- and thus not finding any particular reason to be bored or terrified -- and being unsure about why bets are being made or what to do when faced with various decisions.

So maybe it ain’t so much a function of the difference between PLO and NLHE, but the difference between inexperience and understanding, that inspires such doubts about this here poker cliché.

Or not. After all, I must’ve been at least a little bit bored at the table to have thought about all this.

2008 WSOP ME Final Table Rescheduled to November

Less than a month before the 2008 World Series of Poker kicks off, ESPN and Harrah’s has announced that the final table of this year’s Main Event will be delayed until November 9th and 10th, with an edited version of the FT being shown on November 11th -- a delay of nearly four months from when they’ll have reached the final nine.

Former WSOP Main Event champions Greg Raymer (2004) and Tom McEvoy (1983), both members of Team PokerStars, are expressing mixed feelings about the decision. “I am very torn over this proposal,” says Raymer. “It might be huge for the continued growth of poker, however, the down side is this long gap allows the players to become completely different people between the time they make the final table, and when they play it.”

Raymer voices a concern that several raised when rumors began swirling last month that the change was being considered. “You know all nine will get coaching,” says Raymer, “and especially they will get coaching tailored to each of their eight opponents.”

McEvoy’s comments primarily concern how the change will affect the staging of the event itself. “If players have to leave for several weeks and then come back for the Main Event, I think it would reduce attendance,” says McEvoy. Still, he ultimately is more positive about the change than is Raymer, saying he thinks it is “a very interesting and exciting thing to do” and that he favors it.

Kind of interesting to see how the two champs -- one of whom won well before the Moneymaker “boom” and one who won immediately afterward -- seem to be responding differently (in tone, at least) to the change.

What do I think? While some of the arguments in favor of the change are intriguing, I have to admit my feelings on the matter haven't altered all that much from what I posted in a comment over on Pokerati a month ago:

“If we’re talking old-fashioned stuff like integrity, competition, and, well, poker, my first, second, and third impressions are this is a truly horrific idea.

If we’re talking new-world stuff like celebrity, hype, and crass commercialism, why this is the bee’s knees!”

In any event, the decision has been made. Let the arguments begin.

In the Money

They've reached the money at the 2006 WSOP Main Event. Of the 8773 who entered, 481 remain. The top 873 places paid. I happened to have been watching online last night as the bubble burst. With about three to go before they were down to 873, a player found himself in the big blind with less than 30,000 in chips. The table folded to the small blind, who put in a raise that would force the big blind player all in. The big blind called, and as he showed the table his pocket aces he announced that was the only hand with which he would have even considered calling. The small blind showed a pair of sixes. The flop came A65, giving both players sets. The turn brought the only card in the deck that could eliminate the big blind -- the case six. What agony.

If you click on the picture you'll get an Excel file that lists the top 50 chip stacks heading into Day 4. I've added columns that show where these players stood entering Day 3. I've also added other notables at the bottom of the list. Incidentally, these chip counts were culled from a couple of different sources, neither of which was CardPlayer (who currently lists a different player atop the leaderboard). CardPlayer, the "official content provider" of the WSOP, has been pretty erratic, frankly, when it comes to providing clear chip counts (a topic of discussion over on the Card Clubs Network Forums as of late).

It is interesting to see how much movement occurs from day to day. Of these top 50, only 16 were in the top 50 heading into Day 3. Most of this group features players who were able to make tremendous moves, the most dramatic probably being Christopher Budak who started yesterday with a meager 21,000 chips (sitting 1,062nd out of 1,159). Today he has 359,500 chips and finds himself in 48th place. Albert Padilla's Day 3 was more than a little impressive as well -- he built 99,800 chips up to 640,000, moving from 274th to 3rd.

None of the name pros are among the top fifty, but Allen Cunningham (100th, 278,000), Annie Duke (191st, 180,000), Hoyt Corkins (218th, 163,000), Joe Hachem (259th, 139,000), Tom McEvoy (278th, 130,000), and Kathy Liebert (282nd, 126,000) all certainly have enough chips to make something happen. The blinds will start today at 2,000/4,000 (with a 500 ante), so none of these players have an "M" ratio below 10 just yet. However, they will all certainly be looking to make moves. Meanwhile pros like Hans "Tuna" Lund (318th, 105,500), Daniel Negreanu (354th, 93,500), Ted Forrest (385th, 78,000), Surindar Sunar (400th, 71,500), and Cyndy Violette (457th, 42,000) have all slipped down into Harrington's orange or red zones and thus will be pushing right away when play resumes today at noon PDT. I imagine about half of the field will be gone after today, but there will still be another five days of play before they reach the end.

I wonder how they plan to fit $12 million cash on a single poker table . . . .

Counting 'em Down . . .

Took me awhile to find these, so I thought I’d share ’em here -- the consolidated chip counts heading into Day 3 of the 2006 WSOP Main Event. 1159 players remain (out of 8773). Click on the image to see the entire list as a Word document -- it prints out on 11 pages. Or click here to view or download an Excel version of the list (24 pages).

Scanning the list, there aren’t that many recognizable names. Near the top there’s Daniel Negreanu in 6th place with a whopping 331,000 chips, Allen Cunningham in 69th with 172,900, and Ted Forrest in 160th with 130,900. Four former Main Event bracelet winners remain alive: 2005 winner Joe Hachem (216th, 114,100), 2001 winner Carlos Mortensen (429th, 77,600), 1983 winner Tom McEvoy (612th, 60,500), and 2000 winner Chris “Jesus” Ferguson (671st, 55,200). Other notables left include David Pham (223rd, 112,300), Josh Arieh (359th, 85,600), Cyndy Violette (413th, 79,000), Surinder Sunar (433rd, 77,300), Hoyt Corkins (528th, 67,900), Annie Duke (540th, 67,000), Freddy Deeb (572nd, 64,500), Kathy Liebert (743rd, 48,500), Phil Ivey (1032nd, 23,400), Tex Barch (1079th, 19,800), and Layne Flack (1084th, 19,500). Unless I’m missing somebody, the rest are names most of us probably don’t immediately recognize. Of course, that’ll be changing soon for a select few of these. You can count on it.