Who are your 2 picks?

Who was left out?

Who shouldnt have been included?


Three new candidates have been nominated, and seven previous finalists make up the 2016 list.

The new candidates are: Todd Brunson, Eli Elezra and Chris Moneymaker.

Six of last year’s finalists return -- Chris Bjorin, Bruno Fitoussi, Carlos Mortensen, Max Pescatori, Matt Savage and David Ulliott -- and one previous nominee – Humberto Brenes, once again find themselves in the Top 10.

http://www.wsop.com/m/news/?newsID=7...2016&Month=Sep

You

Once again, this whole thing is a complete farce. Why are we still paying attention to it?

Yep this

Ted Forrest?

Hof

3x who?
2x is that really the best we can come up with?
1x really?
4x yeah I'd be okay with that

I checked the list of people already in the HOF expecting it to contain everyone given some of the really weird nominations. They should easily be able to come up with 10 great nominations lol.

Ted Forrest, Mike Matusow, Huck Seed deserved mention.

Id pick Carlos and Bjorin from current list.

You would have picked Savage but he continues to leave you off the Bay 101 Shooting Stars list for some reason

LOL @ Todd Brunson

fyp

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-views-gossip-sponsored-online-poker-report/article-eli-elezras-mansion-amp-apparently-he-owes-shaun-deeb-ton-other-people-1541699/?highlight=eli

I'm waiting for the years Allen Kessler and Tony Cousineau squeak in !!!!!! Any chance the entrepreneur alex "lets do a money swap i have euros" dreyfus get's in ???

The criteria they will consider in their vote are as follows:

A player must have played poker against acknowledged top competition
Be a minimum of 40 years old at time of nomination
Played for high stakes
Played consistently well, gaining the respect of peers
Stood the test of time
Or, for non-players, contributed to the overall growth and success of the game of poker, with indelible positive and lasting results.



I'm sure there are better nominees but from the finalists and using this criteria...

Moneymaker for obvious reasons. You could say right place, right time but hes also put in a ton of hours being an ambassador for the game all around the world. He didn't do it for a year or two and then fall back, he still does it now.

If they are being strict on this criteria and the last one only applies to non-players, then he shouldn't get in.


Matt Savage- I think Matt is great at what he does and has been one of the leaders in improving tournament structures and series


Humberto- Not sure how much respect his peers have of his game but the SHARK, SHARK, SHARK alone should get him in. He has been able to combine being a personality with also not being ridiculously annoying about it (to most ). I'm not sure how much ambassador stuff he does in his home country.


Maybe Carlos?? Not super familiar with the skill level of most of the other players when they were more well known. Just because they made it on TV and had their names repeated over and over probably shouldn't make them HOF.


I might be the one person who took this a bit serious but I think HOFs are pretty nice.

Isai Scheinberg obv left out and probably Guy Lalibetre should be in as well (probably did more for high stakes than anyone else)

My two picks are probably Carlos (WSOP ME Champ, 2 time WPT winner, back to back Sunday Millions) and Todd Brunson (played biggest games and from what I understand is near the top at game selection/bankroll mgmt)

??

Until he is included, the whole thing is a joke. He does not just meet the criteria for a non player, he absolutely smashes it out the park.

When he is not included but owners of FTP who stole from the poker world and set pokers rep back a long way are, its nothing but a joke.

Where the **** is Ivey and Huck Seed?

David Ulliott!

If Ivey is 40 the whole thing is a sham.

This +2

Also David chiu more deserving than most of the list.

Check out @themouthmatusow Twitter. He isn't too pleased that he was left off the list again.

My first google result has Phil born in 1977, so not 40 yet.

Here are the numerous flaws with the WSOP HOF:

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 certain insiders have a say as to who gets on the ballot, such as with Doyle getting Sailor Roberts in several 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 harvest our e-mail addresses?

4. The point system has been completely broken in years past, giving an enormous amount of power to a small number of people. Influential HOF members (like Doyle) could to use their influence to get whoever they wanted inducted. This may have been changed, as I don't see any information on how the votes are counted this year.

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

6. We don't know the results of the voting. I can understand keeping the choices of individual voters secret, but why not show vote totals for each candidate? The only reason that comes to mind is to hide irregularities.

7. 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 David Chiu ever getting in may depend on the whim of 1 or 2 people.

8. Because only 2 players per year can be inducted, there is a backlog of people like Chiu building up, and most of them will never get in. This is worsened by the induction of "builders" and joke selections like McEvoy.