Devilfish was in no way a good or honest person, but as others have stated above he fits in the poker HOF for various reasons, not least including the growth of the game in the UK by virtue of his name and notoriety. You don't have to be admirable or altruistic to have a positive effect on something.

Only familiar with Ulliot from TV.

Yes Fish really did hit Antonio with an "Ali Baba" blast.

https://youtu.be/roh61PaWTZc

And some of the sounds he made when Hellmuth cracked his aces in the Ace From Space hand are not of this planet.

Lastly,

Floorman: "Don't swear in front of the dealer..."

Devilfish: "I was swearing AT the dealer."

Devilfish is the first posthumous election since Sailor Roberts, and you have to go back to Stu Ungar in 2001 for another one. I don't think a new rule is needed to account for these rare occurrences.

As for limiting to two a year, if they went ahead and elected everybody now, by 2023 they'd be down to nominating Grimstarr and that couple who holds up signs for Phil Ivey at tournaments. This is ever more true after the Full Tilt collapse had the same effect on the poker Hall as steroids did for baseball.

Devilfish is a very marginal candidate based on the indicated criteria and as I pointed out in last year's thread, no one on 2p2 ever mentioned him as a candidate until after he passed away.

However, it's not worth getting upset about. The Poker HOF is an acknowledged joke for as long as Isai Scheinberg, who did more to grow and build poker than anyone in history and with the utmost integrity, isn't in. Just accept this "HOF" for what it is and not as a true historic record of the all time greats.

funny how 95% of the people complaining about hall of fame worthiness havent even contributed 5% of what the players they are complaining about have.

Such as Barbara Enright?

Has anyone been inducted in the HOF whose accomplishments are purely in the realm of online poker? Is it possible that the HOF just doesn't consider online poker to be real poker? It's not like there's anyone in the football HOF based on their accomplishments at Madden NFL.

(To be fair, this excuse is undercut by the fact that the WSOP now has online bracelet events.)

Who would be the best candidates that are at least 40 years old?

Interesting.

Bear in mind that the age minimum of 40 also prevents most of the online whizzes – regardless of what they've done in the live environment – from being considered for HOF induction.

As for a person being inducted 100% for their contributions to online poker, it's quite unlikely for any player, as anyone who crushed online poker eventually will make the transition to the brick-and-mortar game. And those who didn't make that transition probably would not yet qualify for the "test of time" criterion for the HOF. However, I suppose there's a chance that – 20 years from now – the HOF inducts someone who crushed the online poker world for decades but never really ventured into the live scene in any substantial way. (Offhand, I'm envisioning if the Dang brothers were still playing online.)

By the way, the Madden video game analogy fails in a couple of places:
a) Scheinberg's association with poker is not the equivalent of someone who is really good at playing Madden NFL but rather for being the head honcho. So at best, I'd say Scheinberg is to poker what Electronic Arts Tiburon is to American football.

b) with (a) in mind, if someone could demonstrate that the Madden NFL game inspired thousands of young kids to later put on the pads and helmet; and that many of the top players (or coaches) in The League succeeded because they first mastered the console game, then yes... perhaps EA founder Trip Hawkins could have a bust in Canton as a contributor.


EDIT: if/when Isai goes into the Poker Hall of Fame, can a similar case then be made for, say, Anurag Dik****.

well for starters she has 3 bracelets, thats 3 more than you have im sure.

Not sure I see any relevance to your point, other than stating the obvious. Most HOFs are voted on by people like sportswriters, etc., who have relatively little "contribution" as you say, compared to the inductees.

By your reasoning, should we not give our reviews/critiques of recent movies unless we're a card-carrying member of SAG and have already produced or directed a feature film?

Comparing poker players (most of whom are losers or make miniscule profit) to sports writers whove spent their entire careers following the sport/players and actually providing insight, is a bit of a stretch. Theres a reason the casual sports fan isnt voting players into hall of fames, because their opinion means nothing. Those who actually contribute something are the only ones who are given the power to vote.

Same for movies. Main stream media outlets are posting reviews from people whos job is to critique. They arent posting the opinion of a high schooler who took his girlfriend out to the movies.

Except this is an anonymous internet poker forum, not some professional mainstream media outlet, and is solely designed for the exchange of ideas, opinions, information, critiques, etc., among its users. You seem to be taking exception to the very reason for its existence.

I have no problem with people exchanging ideas on an anonymous internet poker forum. Maybe you misunderstood my first post. I simply said its funny most of the people complaining havent even achieved 5% of what the new entrants have achieved. Nothing more nothing less.

If Isai were to get HoF, would anyone argue that Ruth Parasol, or maybe even Dik****, should of got in before him?

It's a weird deal getting nominated for this as people go to their phones petitioning their friends already in the HOF which I haven't done in the last three years being nominated. It's obviously very political and with everyone knowing one spot was gone with Ivey it was really up in the air.


Happy to see a European player make the Hall as it has been a long time coming.

Daniel pushing for Isai likely gets him on the nomination list even though he hasn't been nominated yet to this point.