2015 Poker Hall of Fame Candidates announced -- no Isai

Once again, the running joke that is the Poker Hall of Fame has its 10 candidates for the year. Terrence Chan (former Pokerstars employee) pushed for the inclusion of Pokerstars founder Isai Scheinberg, but it didn't happen.

2013 Poker HOF thread: http://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sho...ates-announced

2014 Poker HOF thread: http://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sho...ates-Announced

My post on why the point system to elect people is completely (and intentionally?) broken, allowing small voting blocs to force friends in: http://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sho...l=1#post292573

SrslySirius' post on why the HOF is a complete joke: http://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sho...l=1#post292764

Tom McEvoy was one of the two elected in 2013 (lol).

Jack McClelland was one of the two elected in 2014 (again, lol).

Amazingly, David Chiu fell off the ballot after 2013, but he's back this year.

Here are the candidates for 2015:

Quote:

---

CHRIS BJORIN
DAVID CHIU
BRUNO FITOUSSI
JENNIFER HARMAN
JOHN JUANDA
CARLOS MORTENSEN
MAX PESCATORI
TERRY ROGERS
MATT SAVAGE
DAVID “DEVILFISH” ULLIOTT

---

At most, two will be elected.

The new ones for this year are John Juanda, Terry Rogers, Matt Savage, Devilfish, and Max Pescatori.

David Chiu and Carlos Mortenson came back after being gone in 2014.

Ted Forrest, Humberto Brenes, Huck Seed, and Mike Matusow, on last year's ballot, are gone.

So who is Terry Rogers?

Quote:

---

Many consider Terry Rogers Ireland’s ‘Godfather of Poker’ but the colorful character is also one of the most influential people in all of Europe in terms of impact on the game of poker, sports betting and horse racing. Rogers founded The Eccentric Club and started the Irish Poker Open in 1980, the longest running tournament in Europe, and the second-longest overall, behind only the World Series of Poker. Rogers was a frequent attendee at the World Series of Poker in the 1970’s, and took the game of Hold’em back to Europe with him and helped bridge the game between continents. Rogers was a bookmaker by trade and credited with changing the face of sports betting in Ireland by revolutionizing betting shops and making them accessible to the ordinary man. Rogers was quite a showman too who was involved in the Muhammad Ali fight that took place in Dublin in 1972. Born in 1928, Rogers passed away in 1999. He dabbled in poker himself including a runner-up finish in the Alaskan Stakes tournament in 1983, but it was beyond the felt where he had the greatest impact. He was instrumental in the career of Noel Furlong, the only Irish WSOP Main Event Champion, who won the event in 1999 and also convinced the likes of Doyle Brunson, Stu Ungar, Amarillo Slim, Chip Reese and Tom McEvoy to travel to Dublin for Rogers’ tournament.

---

He "dabbled in poker" and is up for the HOF? Sad.

I also object in general to tournament directors, casino owners, media people, or any other non-players being in the poker HOF, unless they make a separate section (and separate election) for non-players. How can Terry Rogers be competing in the same election with David Chiu?

Hopefully Chiu will finally get the election he deserves.

Here are my past writeups on the 5 candidates we've seen in 2013/2014:

Quote:

---

Chris Bjorin: No. This is someone who is consistent and has racked up big numbers simply by playing for a lot of years, but isn't HOF material. Few would mention Chris Bjorin as one of poker's all-time greats.

Jennifer Harman: Maybe. She is known for her ever-presence at high stakes cash games, but I am hearing conflicting reports as to whether or not she really wins at them. She has struggled in tournaments in recent years. It is possible she is a net loser in tournament play overall. On the plus side, Andy Beal considered her one of the toughest opponents in the infamous $100,000/$200,000 nosebleed heads up games awhile back, and she generally has a good reputation for her cash skill.

Bruno Fitoussi: No. Big guy for poker in France, but otherwise does not have HOF numbers, nor is he known for being a big cash game winner. (I played with him on Stars last decade, and actually found him to be one of the weaker LHE players at the higher games.) I understand the argument that Fitoussi did a lot to popularize poker in France, but again, that should not be a reason for induction -- at least not alongside players.

David Chiu: Yes. This guy owns in all kinds of games, and is one of the most underrated in the game. I believe he currently holds the Limit Hold 'Em all time WSOP cash title (I'm 10th on that list), but he also has bracelets in Stud and O8. He's cashed $7.7 million since 1996.

Carlos Mortensen: Maybe. This guy has had some big hits at both the WSOP and WPT, racking up almost $11.5 million in cashes. However, he is nonexistent at cash games, and has just 27 WSOP cashes despite many years of play and a ton of events.

---

Regarding the new candidates:

Terry Rogers: No. He almost never played poker. Perhaps could be considered for a non-players' HOF, but should never hold a spot that could be given to a player.

Matt Savage: No. See reasons above for Terry Rogers.

Max Pescatori: Maybe. But he's not a cash player, and has "only" cashed $4 million, which is fairly low considering all of the big buyin events he has entered. His four WSOP bracelets and influence over the Italian poker scene are the main arguments to let him in.

Devilfish: No. Only one WPT title and one WSOP title. Not known to be a cash player. Was probably nominated only because he died this year.

John Juanda: Yes. $17 million in cashes, 5 WSOP bracelets, and EPT/WPT/APT/PPT titles. Also, he apparently was one of the big anti-Lederer and anti-Bitar forces at Full Tilt, who attempted to create a bloc of part owners to get those clowns out.

If I had to vote, I would go for Chiu and Juanda.

With the way poker has exploded I am surprised they only elect 2

There really should be different categories of inductees each year: Promoters of the game, and players, with up to 2 spots for the first, and up to 3 for the second. Because the game has gotten so much bigger than back in the day.

As mentioned in the OP, they also need to completely need to revamp the voting system. Right now it's a complete joke, open to serious abuse, and DOES get abused.

I can't wait for the fourteenth thread discussing this.

DanDruff, one more bracelet and continuing to run this forum equals hall of fame for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chinamaniac

With the way poker has exploded I am surprised they only elect 2

---

As I noted in the post that Druff linked to, there is a backlog of deserving players that are going to be permanently shut out as a result of this (worsened by joke inductions like McClelland, McEvoy, Linda Johnson, etc.)

and Micon gets the snub again....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Once again, the running joke that is the Poker Hall of Fame has its 10 candidates for the year. Terrence Chan (former Pokerstars employee) pushed for the inclusion of Pokerstars founder Isai Scheinberg, but it didn't happen.

2013 Poker HOF thread: http://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sho...ates-announced

2014 Poker HOF thread: http://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sho...ates-Announced

My post on why the point system to elect people is completely (and intentionally?) broken, allowing small voting blocs to force friends in: http://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sho...l=1#post292573

SrslySirius' post on why the HOF is a complete joke: http://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sho...l=1#post292764

Tom McEvoy was one of the two elected in 2013 (lol).

Jack McClelland was one of the two elected in 2014 (again, lol).

Amazingly, David Chiu fell off the ballot after 2013, but he's back this year.

Here are the candidates for 2015:



At most, two will be elected.

The new ones for this year are Dan Druff, Terry Rogers, Matt Savage, Devilfish, and Max Pescatori.

David Chiu and Carlos Mortenson came back after being gone in 2014.

Ted Forrest, Humberto Brenes, Huck Seed, and Mike Matusow, on last year's ballot, are gone.

So who is Terry Rogers?

Quote:

---

Many consider Terry Rogers Ireland’s ‘Godfather of Poker’ but the colorful character is also one of the most influential people in all of Europe in terms of impact on the game of poker, sports betting and horse racing. Rogers founded The Eccentric Club and started the Irish Poker Open in 1980, the longest running tournament in Europe, and the second-longest overall, behind only the World Series of Poker. Rogers was a frequent attendee at the World Series of Poker in the 1970’s, and took the game of Hold’em back to Europe with him and helped bridge the game between continents. Rogers was a bookmaker by trade and credited with changing the face of sports betting in Ireland by revolutionizing betting shops and making them accessible to the ordinary man. Rogers was quite a showman too who was involved in the Muhammad Ali fight that took place in Dublin in 1972. Born in 1928, Rogers passed away in 1999. He dabbled in poker himself including a runner-up finish in the Alaskan Stakes tournament in 1983, but it was beyond the felt where he had the greatest impact. He was instrumental in the career of Noel Furlong, the only Irish WSOP Main Event Champion, who won the event in 1999 and also convinced the likes of Doyle Brunson, Stu Ungar, Amarillo Slim, Chip Reese and Tom McEvoy to travel to Dublin for Rogers’ tournament.

---

He "dabbled in poker" and is up for the HOF? Sad.

I also object in general to tournament directors, casino owners, media people, or any other non-players being in the poker HOF, unless they make a separate section (and separate election) for non-players. How can Terry Rogers be competing in the same election with David Chiu?

Hopefully Chiu will finally get the election he deserves.

Here are my past writeups on the 5 candidates we've seen in 2013/2014:

Quote:

---

Chris Bjorin: No. This is someone who is consistent and has racked up big numbers simply by playing for a lot of years, but isn't HOF material. Few would mention Chris Bjorin as one of poker's all-time greats.

Jennifer Harman: Maybe. She is known for her ever-presence at high stakes cash games, but I am hearing conflicting reports as to whether or not she really wins at them. She has struggled in tournaments in recent years. It is possible she is a net loser in tournament play overall. On the plus side, Andy Beal considered her one of the toughest opponents in the infamous $100,000/$200,000 nosebleed heads up games awhile back, and she generally has a good reputation for her cash skill.

Bruno Fitoussi: No. Big guy for poker in France, but otherwise does not have HOF numbers, nor is he known for being a big cash game winner. (I played with him on Stars last decade, and actually found him to be one of the weaker LHE players at the higher games.) I understand the argument that Fitoussi did a lot to popularize poker in France, but again, that should not be a reason for induction -- at least not alongside players.

David Chiu: Yes. This guy owns in all kinds of games, and is one of the most underrated in the game. I believe he currently holds the Limit Hold 'Em all time WSOP cash title (I'm 10th on that list), but he also has bracelets in Stud and O8. He's cashed $7.7 million since 1996.

Carlos Mortensen: Maybe. This guy has had some big hits at both the WSOP and WPT, racking up almost $11.5 million in cashes. However, he is nonexistent at cash games, and has just 27 WSOP cashes despite many years of play and a ton of events.

---

Regarding the new candidates:

Terry Rogers: No. He almost never played poker. Perhaps could be considered for a non-players' HOF, but should never hold a spot that could be given to a player.

Matt Savage: No. See reasons above for Terry Rogers.

Max Pescatori: Maybe. But he's not a cash player, and has "only" cashed $4 million, which is fairly low considering all of the big buyin events he has entered. His four WSOP bracelets and influence over the Italian poker scene are the main arguments to let him in.

Devilfish: No. Only one WPT title and one WSOP title. Not known to be a cash player. Was probably nominated only because he died this year.

John Juanda: Yes. $17 million in cashes, 5 WSOP bracelets, and EPT/WPT/APT/PPT titles. Also, he apparently was one of the big anti-Lederer and anti-Bitar forces at Full Tilt, who attempted to create a bloc of part owners to get those clowns out.

If I had to vote, I would go for Chiu and Juanda.

---

FYP

lol at Poker, Blackjack or Rock&Roll having a hall of fame....

there really isn't a centralized body or group that is recognized as the governing body of the activity.... for example college sport has the NCAA and NAIA; baseball has the National Association of baseball leagues...Boxing has the WBA,WBC or Ring Magazine...

Pescatori is probably the best poker player out of the lot, with Juanda a close second, but none of these should be in a Hall of Fame. It's not the Hall of Very Good.

There should be a PFA Poker Hall of Fame

and a Hall of Shame

(greatest scammers)

Devilfish not known to be a cash player he says.


Well on the internet he wasn't.


But live he was, and often AND crushed.


Dave is also part responsible for many in Europe taking up the game.


And I know Druff doesn't like him because he slapped some birds arse or w/e. But the guy was genuinely liked by everybody who knew him. He had bags of charisma and was also a pretty decent safecracker back in the day.


I predict The Fish will make HOF and it will be richly deserved.

Juanda and Harman get the nod.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion...oker-hall-fame

Jen Harman lol nuff said

According to Earl Burton, the voting panel may have been altered this year, cutting back the number of media votes and giving inducted HOFers more power.

Has anyone heard anything about this? LOL if true.

The other day I heard someone say that the institution is in a transition from the Hall of Doyle and Friends to the Hall of Daniel and Friends. Sounds about right.

"Hall of Daniel and Friends" seems to be a pretty accurate assessment these days. At least Daniel learned quickly how to manipulate the system like his nemesis Howard had been previously doing. Gotta give him credit for seeing the game theory right there.

Juanda deserved induction, but yeah, Jennifer Harman seems to have been manipulated in there by Negreanu and his buddies. Harman isn't a horrible induction like McEvoy and some of the others, but she wasn't the 2nd most deserving candidate this year.

David Chiu, who is a great player yet seems to have few influential friends, gets it up the ass once again.

BTW, articles like the one SrslySirius posted above tend to ignore one of the most important factors -- the ability to "game" the voting process by simply voting for the 1 or 2 people you want to see in, leaving the rest blank, and having your friends do the exact same. This gives a HUGE edge for your candidates which can be nearly impossible to overcome.

This is worse than all of the other (also valid) issues being raised about the poker HOF, including non-players competing with players, no transparency, few non-American voters, etc.

Cutting off more media votes is indeed LOL if true.

Looks like they are trying to make it even more of a circle jerk than it already is.

I posed the same question on 2+2 and Kevmath confirmed.

Quote:

---

This year, The voting panel was 23 PHOF, 16 media. Due to a variety of reasons, several media members lost their vote.

---

:facepalm

I doubt it was Howard Lederer who was "manipulating" votes to get certain people in the Hall of Fame. A more like person to influence PHOF members is Doyle Brunson.



Last year, the Poker Hall of Fame voting panel was 21 PHOF members, 20 poker media.
This year it was 23/16.

I lost half of my vote because the rules state that each media outlet gets one vote. I was grandfathered in because I received my vote before being rehired by BLUFF. When I was hired by PocketFives, that turned into me and Dan Cypra sharing the 10 points. Lance Bradley lost his vote as he's currently not employed, Andrew Feldman lost his as he's no longer doing poker and Vin Naruyan (sp) of Casino City Times was usually the go-to person who did the voting (although other writers collaborated on the ballot). Vin no longer works there and it appears that vote also disappeared. Why other poker media members (especially outside the US) were not given a vote to make up the deficit is unknown to me.

Also worth noting is the lack of knowledge on how close the election was. How many points did Harman/Juanda get? How many points did the other candidates get? Why that information isn't made available to the public?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kevmath

I doubt it was Howard Lederer who was "manipulating" votes to get certain people in the Hall of Fame. A more like person to influence PHOF members is Doyle Brunson.



Last year, the Poker Hall of Fame voting panel was 21 PHOF members, 20 poker media.
This year it was 23/16.

I lost half of my vote because the rules state that each media outlet gets one vote. I was grandfathered in because I received my vote before being rehired by BLUFF. When I was hired by PocketFives, that turned into me and Dan Cypra sharing the 10 points. Lance Bradley lost his vote as he's currently not employed, Andrew Feldman lost his as he's no longer doing poker and Vin Naruyan (sp) of Casino City Times was usually the go-to person who did the voting (although other writers collaborated on the ballot). Vin no longer works there and it appears that vote also disappeared. Why other poker media members (especially outside the US) were not given a vote to make up the deficit is unknown to me.

Also worth noting is the lack of knowledge on how close the election was. How many points did Harman/Juanda get? How many points did the other candidates get? Why that information isn't made available to the public?

---

Hi Kevin. I wanted to ask you about the "various reasons" on 2+2, but assumed you weren't at liberty to say. Thanks for elaborating.

Last year they posted voting guidelines publicly. Was that the case this year? I'm curious if the same abusable point system was used this year, where you could just give all 10 points to one nominee and zeroes to everyone else.

Also, if you don't mind me asking, are you certain about the 23/16 split? Was that posted publicly anywhere or in e-mails to voters? Or is that deduced from the number of people that lost votes?

This HOF thing has always rubbed me the wrong way. I don't know why I care, but for some reason I do. I'm considering making a video detailing all its flaws.

It's the same 10-point process that's been used in recent years. Players can use the 10 points across 1, 2 or 3 candidates (or submit a blank ballot for the lolz, but would assume you won't get one again).

The press release announcing the 2015 PHOF class mentions a 39-person voting panel - http://www.wsop.com/news/2015/Oct/75...S-OF-2015.html There are 23 living Poker Hall of Fame members, and am assuming all voted.

The press release from last year mentioned 41 individuals - http://www.wsop.com/news/2014/Oct/50...S-OF-2014.html

A huge problem with the abusable 10-point voting system is that the media isn't likely to commit the same sort of manipulation, and is likely to vote fairly.

So that makes the abusers of the system even more powerful.

The whole system is the opposite of transparent.

I am guessing they will defend not releasing the voting totals so as to not to embarrass the non-inducted players, but obviously that's BS.

Anyone ever go to this event? Is it good or boring? I get free tickets to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erin Micunt

Anyone ever go to this event? Is it good or boring? I get free tickets to it.

---

Tickets? Is that how they're doing it now?

I went in 2013. It was just a dinner you get invited to. I think about 70 people showed up, mostly poker pros. The food was great. Before each induction, several people would go up and give speeches about the person.

Notably, Tom McEvoy's daughter went up and talked about how he was brought in as a consultant to audit UB in the midst of the superuser scandal. She didn't name the company, but I think it was obvious what she was talking about. This was meant to be an example of his unflappable integrity, as his findings were apparently unsettling, and he refused to sugercoat the report when pressed. So the report was never released and McEvoy never said a word about it. I think it would have been a better story if he had gone publicly with his findings.

Anyway, I found the whole thing pretty interesting. If you're into hearing stories from back in the day and rubbing elbows with old school pros, you should enjoy it.

I believe you mean Wendeen Eolis as the one who was praising McEvoy for his integrity. When me and SS were there, it was at the Rio, the past couple of years it's been at Binion's so there's likely more seating available there.

They give it as a perk for winning wsop online poy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kevmath

I believe you mean Wendeen Eolis as the one who was praising McEvoy for his integrity. When me and SS were there, it was at the Rio, the past couple of years it's been at Binion's so there's likely more seating available there.

---

http://www.pokerplayernewspaper.com/..._caption_1.png

http://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sho...poker-reporter

Kevin knows better than most how unreliable my memory is, but even I'm surprised that I could forget that face.

Kevin, if you're still monitoring this thread, I'm trying to put together a list of people that have publicly acknowledged that they have a Hall of Fame vote. Who am I missing? Besides living HOFers, of course.

Lance Bradley
Kevin Mathers
Chris Tessaro
Dan Cypra
Nolan Dalla
Gary Trask
Martin Harris (Shamus)
Dr. Pauly
Haley Hintze

I don't recall if anyone at PokerNews or Cardplayer have been open about it.

http://calvinayre.com/2015/11/02/pok...seth-palansky/

pretty good article from Seth Palansky on HOF voting.

He explained the 10pt system:

"As I have explained in private emails to a few who inquired, if there’s one thing that is occurring in the voting, it is the decision on how many people a voter votes for. Since there is a 10-point must system (meaning, a voter can allocate 10 points. He can give them all to one person, split them among two people, or at maximum, split them among three people). So some voters vote for one person and give them all 10 points. Others vote for 3 and may allocate those 10 points as 3-3-4. So in that case, someone who gets 3 points by one voter, really needs three other voters also to give them 3 points to surpass the one voter who gave one person 10 points.

Voters are told to vote for whom they believe is most deserving in this calendar year. But again, when you are dealing with people, they interpret the information and the data as they see fit. With 390 total points up for grabs this year and each voter representing 2.5% of the votes, a finalist who gets say five voters to give them all ten votes, accrues 50 points. Compared to another finalist who may get 20 different voters to give them each 2 points, for 40 points. The finalist getting five people’s support is ahead of the other getting 20 people’s support. Is that fair? Is that the way it should be? Sure, that all can be questioned. But following the rules and the intent, simply the finalists getting the most total points are the ones ultimately inducted. It certainly doesn’t mean others didn’t have broad support. I think it just means some guys had their votes split, in essence, while others not as much."

Then answers the question regarding collusion to game system.

What’s your opinion of widening the selection committee to prevent the clique like mentality?

We haven’t seen any evidence of a clique. In fact, this was likely the closest voting year in a long time. More finalists earned a fair share of points than ever before. There were a lot of worthy candidates, many of which will be on the finalists list again next year, I’m sure.

People give a shit about this? Really?