But would he be 40 by time of induction?

Actually he needs to be 40 by the time of nomination. So that makes sense he was not nominated.

No Isai no interest. this is some booo****

9/10

Moneymaker should be a lock to get in, just look at those criteria

The only one you could argue he hasn't done is played consistently well, but he's probably not in the bottom 35% of skill level of players that have won the ME, either.

I'd give the remaining spot to Matt Savage, dude will obv get it at some point and the other nominees are of a lower level.



I think maybe WSOP curates to players that actually still play a lot of WSOP at the moment they get into the HOF. Maybe Isai and Ivey will never pop up because of that.

Very good post.

I'd like to see Ulliot nominated. I feel he deserves it in part for being a player and for the growth of the game in the UK that he had a big part in.

2) Moneymaker I'd like to see get it as well but tbh I'd like to wait a few years to see what comes of online poker. If the industry continues to contract then it doesn't seem relevant. If things can improve then I'd like to see him included. He works very hard as an ambassador to the game and is a genuinely humble man that is so easy for the common man to relate with.

3) Obviously Isai not getting the nod is a joke and embarrassment for the entire HOF. By not including him the current members of the HOF should be outraged as it just throws the entire HOF's sense of worth into serious question. This brings down their stock.

Moneymaker and Savage.

According to the latest EPT Not Live podcast, Stapes is one of them.

I'm not really sure you could argue Moneymaker meets any of those criteria (well, he's 40), but I'd still be okay him getting in, mainly because poker doesn't have the same rule that baseball has:

6. Automatic Elections: No automatic elections based on performances such as a batting average of .400 or more for one (1) year, pitching a perfect game or similar outstanding achievement shall be permitted.

I think poker should separate the player and contributor categories, maybe elect one player a year and a contributor every other year, something like that. The idea of having to elect two people every single year is a bit much.

Chris Moneymaker is a no brainer at this point. The guy put poker on the map and his win made the W.S.OP and Pokerstars massive juggernauts. He always comes across as a cool guy, and you can still seeing him grinding away on Pokerstars.

I nominate Freddy Deeb, Shaun Deeb, and Jennifer Tilly's cleavage.

What are you even talking about?


A player must have played poker against acknowledged top competition: Moneymaker has played against pretty much anyone at this point, in tournaments and (probably less but he's appeared on tv multiple times) cash games (probably less but he's appeared on tv multiple times).
Played for high stakes: Yes he has, see televised cash games
Played consistently well, gaining the respect of peers: Like I said he isn't a typical pro but he's OK enough to not "fail" this criteria.
Stood the test of time: Dude's been one of the most recognized poker faces since 2003 and nobody has anything bad to say about the guy.
Or, for non-players, contributed to the overall growth and success of the game of poker, with indelible positive and lasting results. They invented a term for what his impact on the poker industry was (Moneymaker effect, it even has a Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moneymaker_effect )



I just noticed moneymaker was eligible for the first time which makes sense, otherwise he'd already be in. He has to be at least a 50% chance to get in given his competition.

this. /thread

It's true that the qualifications are vague enough that he and thousands of other people qualify. I mean, every year thousands of people enter WSOP events and play "against acknowledged top competition," for high stakes, and I suppose being on a TV cash game a few times is playing for high stakes (though if PokerStars is fronting the cash is that really the same?).

But I'm not sure how you could stretch the record to say he has played consistently well, or what "stood the test of time" even means. Does he have the respect of his peers as a poker player, or as an ambassador?

So you pretty much nailed it with that last qualification: he should be inducted as somebody who contributed to the overall growth and success of the game of poker, with indelible positive and lasting results. That seems pretty clear.

I'll also give my annual complaint that the last one is poorly written/conceived, and that such contributions shouldn't only be considered for 'non players.' Better wording would be: "Contributions to the overall growth and success of the game of poker, with indelible positive and lasting results, will also be considered, including for non-players."

Brunson & Devilfish

Layne flack?

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk

Moneymaker is a no brainer. He's the guy who started it all. Now you may say the boom was going to happen anyway (I agree) but he was one hell of a great lead character. No name guy named Moneymaker- Storybook.

Isai Scheinberg would not show up. I'm sure that's another key reason they won't nominate/elect.They should have 2 players a year and then poker contributors every other year.

Dan robison?

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk

Hoff, Caro, Sklansky, Malmuth all deserve to be in hof

Mori Eskandani

Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk

Just don't think a losing one hit wonder (Moneymaker) should be a first ballot automatic

Phil laak, Antonio Esfandiari, David Williams and of course Babs Enright.

Enright is already in. Went in the same year as Hellmuth IIRC

Perhaps it's time they started letting more than two people in per year. Things have changed a lot since it started in the 70's or whenever.

This is not a good idea. We already have a weak class to choose from this year and its hard to make a case for any of the nominees let alone three of them.