2015 Poker Hall of Fame Candidates announced -- no Isai

[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?

[SrslySirius]

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.

[Kevmath]

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

[Dan Druff]

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.

[Erin Micunt]

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

[SrslySirius]

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.

[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.

[Erin Micunt]

They give it as a perk for winning wsop online poy

[Dan Druff]

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

[SrslySirius]

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

[SrslySirius]

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.

[anchordraw]

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.

[Daly]

People give a shit about this? Really?