Early Hall of Fame Voting

by , Sep 14, 2010 | 6:56 pm

Not that it means anything, nor that we’re gonna horserace this … but just a little indication how Pokerati’s early adopters see things. Results from the first batch of votes we’ve gotten in Pokerati’s Mock Hall of Fame selection process:

Harrington – 81
Seidel – 56
Ivey – 54
Johnson – 33
Greenstein – 30
McEvoy – 20
Nguyen – 15
Negreanu – 9
Ferguson – 12
Harman – 0

Click here to cast your mock ballot if you haven’t already.
Note: We’ve added a spot for write-ins and for you to leave your Twitter ID!

Of the 33 ballots tabulated, two had to be thrown out, which should be a bummer for Scotty Nguyen, since he had the most among the illegitimate points, and I don’t mean that in any sorta racist way.

You know, when Scotty does get in, you can imagine much will be made of his whole “Baby” shtick. That right there tells me something, as it would be much more “adorable” coming from a withering inductee in his 70s than an active player apparently getting paid in product for his sponsorship deal with Jheri curl.

With age always relevant in the Hall of Fame selection process, naturally, @BJNemeth and I couldn’t resist a Socratic dialogue competitively pissing in the wind about the meaning of the emphasized phrase this year:

DM: here is the age issue in a “sport” where you don’t retire:

if moneymaker NEVER did anything again he still deserves to be in eventually before he dies.
if durrrr happened to win a bracelet or two and die an untimely death before age 30, he probably deserves in too … eventually

BJ: To me, this year means things like Phil Ivey & Daniel Negreanu not being “old enough” to get in. I still think they need to codify the Chip Reese Rule into the rules. Voters obviously take age into account already, or else Ivey would have made it last year.

If not for age, Brunson would pick Ivey over Seidel, and even Change100’s PokerNews editorial would seem absurd for suggesting Linda Johnson over Phil Ivey.

Formalize the Chip Reese Rule (players must be 40 years old, with at least a 10-year poker career to be eligible), and these awkward, unwritten problems go away.

DM: so should people below 40 get in only in the result of an untimely death? maybe … but i totally disagree with your 10-year-rule, on the moneymaker clause above.

BJ: I was going for brevity. If a player dies before they reach 40, they become eligible on what would be their 40th birthday. Also, they wouldn’t be eligible until 10 years after their poker career began. (To avoid Durrrr-like issues w/ 40-year-old rookies.)

DM: BJ, you are starting to get absurd.

BJ: I think anyone who suggests that Chris Moneymaker belongs in the Hall of Fame (in anything other than an honorary capacity) is the absurd one.

DM: sigh … but awesome. Moneymaker = Edmund Hoyle.

BJ: I will actively campaign against Moneymaker in the Hall of Fame. Absolute nonsense.

DM: I agree.

Again, cast your mock ballot here. No matter how these results compare to the real ones, the plan here at Pokerati is to use the data as irrefutable proof that “our people” are smarter than everyone else.

4 Comments to “Early Hall of Fame Voting”

  1. Brian G.

    I think every one of them deserves to get in at some point except for Jen Harman. This year, I’d vote Harrington, Seidel, Ivey, and Linda Johnson, same top 4 as your poll.

  2. DanM

    dude, you can only vote for 3 (at MOST) and you have 10 points to distribute. You gotta make some cuts.

    (Though I don’t see why it would be a problem to give 1 vote to each. maybe the 3 spaces out the points and reduces the likeliood of anyone trying to game the system.)

  3. TheFakeMoneymaker

    Without Chris Moneymaker, you aren’t making any money off of the poker business today. He has done more for progressing poker to where it is today than that entire list combined.

  4. DanM

    I agree. That’s why Moneymaker is in no matter what, imho. When is another debate, but he proves there is a place for a one-hit wonder in the HOF. Not saying CM is one … just saying that even if that were the case, he still should be in.

    Seriously not sure where BJ is coming from with his assertion of anything but.