-Oppie
-Hennigan
-Ray D
-Ted Forrest
-David Chui
-Dan Heimiller

Russ Hamilton

I think they should let in zero of the current nominees. None of them belong in.

Imagine there was one guy who:
> Brought the first ever Europeans to the WSOP
> Ran the first ever Hold'em festival and tournaments outside the US
> Was the first bookmaker to offer odds on the WSOP and poker tournaments at the tournament (and was arrested for it)
> Was the first bookmaker to offer odds on the WSOP and poker tournaments outside the US

That guy was Terry Rogers. If you bump into Doyle or any of his peers, ask him if Terry should be in the HOF.

I'm sure Doyle would say a lot of nice things about a lot of people, but this list isn't nearly as impressive as you seem to think it is.

I cant fathom people havent nominated brillaint27 yet

Are you American by any chance?

Even if not, the HoF might as well be renamed the US HoF

People like Terry Rogers, Devil Fish, Bruno Fitoussi are all deserving but will probably never get in

isnt eli elezra a dirty thief?

Ty sir. I cannot believe it either.

How the hell is Todd Bruson and Eli Elezra up for this?

The age restriction doesn't make a ton of sense.

Take moneymaker for example, if he was 21 during the 2003 WSOP he'd be facing a much tougher ballot class in ~5-6 years. It allows older players to get on weaker ballots while younger players who may have been playing for the same length of time are locked out.

Matusow

Grunching but is the wsop hof different to the poker hall of fame

I think the 40 yo requirement and the 2 entries per year is fine. This class or nominees doesn't seem particularly strong, I see no rush to induct any of them.

That said, most of the nominees are European and I don't really feel in any way qualified to judge the contributions of European players pre-Moneymaker era.

It is strange to me that voters are asked to compare non-player contributors directly up against players. (E.g. The baseball HOF inducts coaches and executives, etc., but through an entirely different process and set of voters as players.)

But as long as the Hall of Fame is inducting non-players through the same method as players, I think Savage should be an slam-dunk. I would probably cast my second vote for Mortensen.

+∞

Google Terry Rogers.

4 boobs by my count.

That would be 5...don't forget Shaun's DD's.

2 of Savage, Mortensen, Devilfish and Moneymaker works.

Savage and Moneymaker would be my two picks except that Devilfish passed away, so it might be the right time to include him. Yes, Moneymaker only has one real accomplishment but it's a major factor in starting the poker boom so he should go in. Savage makes sense out of all of the current non-players I can think of.

Matusow? Is this a joke or what?

Has the "Poker Hall of Fame" morphed into "the Poker Tournament Player Hall of Fame?" I wish more world class cash players were considered. But Moneymaker? I don't know Chris, but he comes across as a nice guy on TV, but for HOF? Really? If he doesn't hit a 4 outer vs Ivey with 11 left he would be crippled and nobody would be talking about him now. (or one bluff vs. Sammy)

He fails at 1) unless you count playing in a tournament vs top players.
He does qualify under 2) being over 40.
He fails at 3). Can he even beat a $5-$10NL game in Vegas?
He fails at 4), see #3.
He fails at 5) basically a one hit wonder binking the WSOP main.
As for 6, he is not a non-player, but he did contribute to the poker boom by winning the main event and capturing the public's imagination.

So again, is hitting a 4 outer worthy of being in the Poker Hall of Fame?

I do not play in high limit circles, so I don't know the names of the great players who fly under the radar that do not play/win tournaments, but one person I feel that should get in is David Sklansky. I think he passes on all 6 qualifying standards.

You're just being petty I think. Mr. Moneymaker is the "everyman" of poker. He started the boom. He gave thousands(millions?) of people the dream that they too could bink a big one. He certainly deserves to be in the WSOP HOF. He opened the WSOP up to the ordinary person when before that it was a world populated by only the lofty elites of poker.

I'm not saying he would say nice things. I'm saying he would agree that he is worth of the HoF, possibly more worthy than many others who have been suggested.

I did some reading on my own, as suggested, and see that Terry Rogers "is generally credited as the person who introduced Texas Hold’em to Europe." That's impressive, yes, as is founding the longest-running tournament in the world besides the WSoP.

I agree those are impressive qualifications, more than the ones you chose to highlight. I mean, I'm not sure why I should care that he took bets on who would win the WSoP, which were two of the four things you chose to list.

Bumping this thread up.

Funny how nobody's mentioned Jeff Lisandro. Talk about flying under the radar.

6 bracelets, 56 cashes at the WSOP
Only man to win a bracelet in the three main Stud variants in one WSOP (2009), and was the WSOP POY that year too.

I think it's safe to say that this may be an accomplishment that will never be duplicated.

doyle