2014 Poker Hall of Fame Candidates Announced

[Dan Druff]

Here are the ten finalists for the 2014 Poker HOF:

CHRIS BJORIN
HUMBERTO BRENES
BRUNO FITOUSSI
TED FORREST
JEN HARMAN
BOB HOOKS
MIKE MATUSOW
JACK McCLELLAND
DANIEL NEGREANU
HUCKLEBERRY SEED

The bolded names are new nominees. The others are holdovers from last year.

In 2013, Scotty Nguyen and Tom McEvoy were elected. McEvoy's election was mocked throughout the poker world, and was apparently the result of voting blocs.

0-2 of the above names will be elected in 2014.

Here is what I wrote last year about the 5 nominees who remain on this ballot:

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.

Humberto Brenes: No. This is another person who racked up a lot of cashes over a long period of time, but is better known for his "shark" nonsense than his great play.

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.

Mike Matusow: Probably. Despite all of his personal and financial problems, the guy is a great tournament player. He final tabled the WSOP Main twice (once with a big field), made 13 WSOP final tables overall, and was at five WPT final tables. He has 4 bracelets and seems to consistently rebound from various life problems with big tournament scores. The one knock against him is that he's not much of a cash game player. Then again, neither is Phil Hellmuth.

Huck Seed: No. After being one of poker's hottest up and comers in the '90s and early 2000s, he hit a wall and has generally been regarded as a has-been over the past decade.

I still agree with my assessment from last year.

Regarding this year's candidates:

Daniel Negreanu: Yes. Despite his lacking results in cash games, he has been a great and consistent performer on the tournament scene. He has also done a lot of great things to promote poker, and has been a good ambassador for the game (Choice Center notwithstanding).

Jack McClelland: No. He's a tournament director, and not a player. He should not be taking a spot away from players who get elected. This should be a separate election for HOF non-players.

Bob Hooks: No. Ever heard of this guy? Probably not. He's a really old guy (85) who was part of the old-school poker scene, spanning back to the 1950s. He also later managed some poker rooms. Simply being old and spending your life in the poker community should not qualify you to make the HOF, even if he played with Doyle and Amarillo Slim.

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.

Ted Forrest: Probably. Successful in both cash games and tournaments, I'm surprised he hasn't been nominated prior to this year. One strike against him, however, is the fact that he hasn't done all that much in recent years.


Can't believe David Chiu wasn't even included on this year's ballot, after getting screwed out of election last year. Unbelievable.

My votes: Negreanu and Matusow

[Dan Druff]

Here are the 2014 HOF voting guidelines: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...MTo/edit?pli=1

This is very bad, and again open to the same bullshit voting blocs and campaigning that got Tom McEvoy in last year.

Voters are supposed to rank the candidates 1-10, but have the option to leave off candidates they don't seem worthy. So, for example, they could vote just #1 and #2, leaving the rest blank.

This screws everyone else on the ballot, as they get zero points, whereas everyone gets points when there is a complete ranking 1-10 of all candidates.

So let's say you wanted to help rig this thing for Bob Hooks. You could vote #1 for him, and leave everything else blank. This would give him 10 points while everyone else would get zero. This would make your vote stronger than those who ranked 1-10, as the #1 finisher on a fully ranked ballot would only "gain" 1 point on the one ranked #2, and only 9 points on the person ranked #10. If you vote for just one person and leave the rest blank, they gain 10 points on everyone!

Totally open to abuse. Last year there was all kinds of campaigning, voting blocs, and other BS, which led to the farcical election of McEvoy.

I imagine the same will happen this year if there is an otherwise undeserving "darling" whom the voters want to elect.

[Pooh]

What the hell do you expect? This is poker we're talking about. If you aren't scamming or cheating you aren't trying.

[Dan Druff]

They should list all of the votes (even if they don't attach them to who voted) so we can see if there was any BS like I described, where 1 person was voted for and the rest left blank.

Everyone should be required to rank all 10.

[Crowe Diddly]

Here are the 2014 HOF voting guidelines: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...MTo/edit?pli=1

This is very bad, and again open to the same bullshit voting blocs and campaigning that got Tom McEvoy in last year.

Voters are supposed to rank the candidates 1-10, but have the option to leave off candidates they don't seem worthy. So, for example, they could vote just #1 and #2, leaving the rest blank.

This screws everyone else on the ballot, as they get zero points, whereas everyone gets points when there is a complete ranking 1-10 of all candidates.

So let's say you wanted to help rig this thing for Bob Hooks. You could vote #1 for him, and leave everything else blank. This would give him 10 points while everyone else would get zero. This would make your vote stronger than those who ranked 1-10, as the #1 finisher on a fully ranked ballot would only "gain" 1 point on the one ranked #2, and only 9 points on the person ranked #10. If you vote for just one person and leave the rest blank, they gain 10 points on everyone!

Totally open to abuse. Last year there was all kinds of campaigning, voting blocs, and other BS, which led to the farcical election of McEvoy.

I imagine the same will happen this year if there is an otherwise undeserving "darling" whom the voters want to elect.

OK. I'm down. Let's rig this thing for Bob Hooks.

edit: nevermind. i thought the finals were public voting.

[mulva]

is there a write in option?

[BeerAndPoker]

Daniel Negreanu: Yes. Despite his lacking results in cash games, he has been a great and consistent performer on the tournament scene. He has also done a lot of great things to promote poker, and has been a good ambassador for the game (Choice Center notwithstanding).

Can't believe David Chiu wasn't even included on this year's ballot, after getting screwed out of election last year. Unbelievable.

My votes: Negreanu and Matusow

Daniel Negreanu is probably the only person on that list who has worked hard enough on his cash game to win in some tough lineups still in 2014.

Chiu should have been nominated again. He is a quiet person who has won enough bracelets to earn a HOF nod.

Negrenau for sure should be in whether people like him or not. Some might say he is still too young yet but whatever. Matusow would be next if we are going off of more recent success over the past couple years otherwise I'd say Ted Forrest who is known as a very solid player that has won a whole lot of money in Vegas over the years.

[chinamaniac]

Daniel Negreanu: Yes. Despite his lacking results in cash games, he has been a great and consistent performer on the tournament scene. He has also done a lot of great things to promote poker, and has been a good ambassador for the game (Choice Center notwithstanding).

Can't believe David Chiu wasn't even included on this year's ballot, after getting screwed out of election last year. Unbelievable.

My votes: Negreanu and Matusow

Daniel Negreanu is probably the only person on that list who has worked hard enough on his cash game to win in some tough lineups still in 2014.

Chiu should have been nominated again. He is a quiet person who has won enough bracelets to earn a HOF nod.

Negrenau for sure should be in whether people like him or not. Some might say he is still too young yet but whatever. Matusow would be next if we are going off of more recent success over the past couple years otherwise I'd say Ted Forrest who is known as a very solid player that has won a whole lot of money in Vegas over the years.

I thought negreanyu came out and said he hasnt touched cash games in like 2 years

[zealanddonk]

I thought negreanyu came out

Not yet, no.

[BeerAndPoker]

I thought negreanyu came out and said he hasnt touched cash games in like 2 years

I didn't know that but even post Black Friday when he was in Canada he played that Isildur challenge on Stars and the big 8 game they have on there.

[WillieMcFML]

don't see yebsite's name

[SrslySirius]

Here are the 2014 HOF voting guidelines: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...MTo/edit?pli=1

This is very bad, and again open to the same bullshit voting blocs and campaigning that got Tom McEvoy in last year.

Voters are supposed to rank the candidates 1-10, but have the option to leave off candidates they don't seem worthy. So, for example, they could vote just #1 and #2, leaving the rest blank.

This screws everyone else on the ballot, as they get zero points, whereas everyone gets points when there is a complete ranking 1-10 of all candidates.

So let's say you wanted to help rig this thing for Bob Hooks. You could vote #1 for him, and leave everything else blank. This would give him 10 points while everyone else would get zero. This would make your vote stronger than those who ranked 1-10, as the #1 finisher on a fully ranked ballot would only "gain" 1 point on the one ranked #2, and only 9 points on the person ranked #10. If you vote for just one person and leave the rest blank, they gain 10 points on everyone!

Totally open to abuse. Last year there was all kinds of campaigning, voting blocs, and other BS, which led to the farcical election of McEvoy.

I imagine the same will happen this year if there is an otherwise undeserving "darling" whom the voters want to elect.

I agree 100% and was complaining bout this yesterday. I did some projections in excel and determined that you should be able to guarantee a player of your choice getting into the HOF with a bloc of 13 voters. That's insane with 41 voters overall. This is of course due to the power of leaving names the ballot as you mentioned.

Even if I'm off with some estimations, 15 should be enough for sure. With a few more people, you could even shut Negreanu out. It doesn't matter if every single other voter ranks him #1.

This is just one of many things that makes the HOF a sad joke.

[fluffer]

Hey, SS, i like the new you, assertive, confrontational, no more emasculated, submissive bottom SS

I suppose you now even demand to get paid for your work at bluff

[SrslySirius]

I could write 5,000 words on why the poker HOF is completely broken, but here's the bullet points:

1. The nomination process is completely opaque. There's a form on the website for fans to submit names, but you never see the results. WSOP could just be hand-picking nominees and you'd never know.

2. In fact, it's quite obvious that people such as Isai Scheinberg are being deliberately kept off the ballot. The interests of the WSOP are a factor. They shouldn't be.

3. It's also known that old timers have a say as to who gets on the ballot, such as Sailor Roberts a few years ago. The "Poker Hall of Fame Governing Council", whoever that is comprised of, supposedly has the ultimate say in who gets on the ballot. So what is the point of giving fans a form to fill out? To create the illusion of fairness?

4. Because only 2 players per year can be inducted, there is a backlog of players that deserve to get in, and many of them likely never will. This is only going to get worse as automatic first-ballot guys like Phil Ivey become eligible. The fact that John Juanda and David Chiu aren't even on the ballot is an absolute farce. They'll probably never get in. Mike Matusow may never get in. Ted Forrest may never get in. Jennifer Harmen may never get in, and yet Barbara Enright and Linda Johnson have been inducted?

5. The point system was completely broken the last several years, giving an enormous amount of power to a small number of people. Doyle Brunson and Phil Hellmuth were able to use their influence to get whoever they wanted inducted. This has been improved somewhat, but is still a major problem.

6. We don't know who the voters are, aside from the living hall of famers. Why is this a secret?

7. We don't know the results of the voting. I can only think of one single reason to withhold the point totals from the public, and that is to hide the fact that it's been fixed. If any of you can think of a legit reason to do so, I'd like to hear it.

8. There are too few voters. This makes it easier to manipulate results with voting blocs, lacks diversity, and increases variance. The chances of someone like Chiu ever getting in may depend on the whim of 1 or 2 people.

[SrslySirius]

Hey, SS, i like the new you, assertive, confrontational, no more emasculated, submissive bottom SS

I suppose you now even demand to get paid for your work at bluff

If anything, I'm less confrontational now than before. I've quietly retired the "SrslySirius" persona and taken most of my videos down.

[Sloppy Joe]

Hey, SS, i like the new you, assertive, confrontational, no more emasculated, submissive bottom SS

I suppose you now even demand to get paid for your work at bluff

If anything, I'm less confrontational now than before. I've quietly retired the "SrslySirius" persona and taken most of my videos down.

Why?

[simpdog]

If anything, I'm less confrontational now than before. I've quietly retired the "SrslySirius" persona and taken most of my videos down.

Why?

isn't it obvious?

:moneytruck

[Steve-O]

I could write 5,000 words on why the poker HOF is completely broken, but here's the bullet points:

1. The nomination process is completely opaque. There's a form on the website for fans to submit names, but you never see the results. WSOP could just be hand-picking nominees and you'd never know.

2. In fact, it's quite obvious that people such as Isai Scheinberg are being deliberately kept off the ballot. The interests of the WSOP are a factor. They shouldn't be.

3. It's also known that old timers have a say as to who gets on the ballot, such as Sailor Roberts a few years ago. The "Poker Hall of Fame Governing Council", whoever that is comprised of, supposedly has the ultimate say in who gets on the ballot. So what is the point of giving fans a form to fill out? To create the illusion of fairness?

4. Because only 2 players per year can be inducted, there is a backlog of players that deserve to get in, and many of them likely never will. This is only going to get worse as automatic first-ballot guys like Phil Ivey become eligible. The fact that John Juanda and David Chiu aren't even on the ballot is an absolute farce. They'll probably never get in. Mike Matusow may never get in. Ted Forrest may never get in. Jennifer Harmen may never get in, and yet Barbara Enright and Linda Johnson have been inducted?

5. The point system was completely broken the last several years, giving an enormous amount of power to a small number of people. Doyle Brunson and Phil Hellmuth were able to use their influence to get whoever they wanted inducted. This has been improved somewhat, but is still a major problem.

6. We don't know who the voters are, aside from the living hall of famers. Why is this a secret?

7. We don't know the results of the voting. I can only think of one single reason to withhold the point totals from the public, and that is to hide the fact that it's been fixed. If any of you can think of a legit reason to do so, I'd like to hear it.

8. There are too few voters. This makes it easier to manipulate results with voting blocs, lacks diversity, and increases variance. The chances of someone like Chiu ever getting in may depend on the whim of 1 or 2 people.

I wrote this last night: http://www.4flush.com/opinion/the-po...-of-joke/17706

[SrslySirius]

I wrote this last night: http://www.4flush.com/opinion/the-po...-of-joke/17706

I did read your post this morning (nice job, btw), but the only point of mine it influenced was #8.

[SrslySirius]

Why?

It would take time to explain, and I may write in detail about it some time later, but for now suffice it to say that it's a personal choice.