I don't think this has gotten much attention, but I think it's important to publicize it. There's a scandal going on in the poker world over a tournament going on right now, the World Series of Poker Tournament of Champions. You may remember that last year after the WSOP they had a made-for-TV event called the Tournament of Champions, with 9 people hand selected to participate. It was most of the big names you would expect - Doyle Brunson, Howard Lederer, Johnny Chan, Annie Duke, Danny Negreanu, Phil Ivey, Phil Hellmuth and, I think, Chip Reese - along with last year's main event winner, Greg Raymer.
This year, they decided to do something different with this tournament. They announced that it would be by qualification rather than invitation this year, and it would be enlarged. The criteria were that the top 20 players in each of the WSOP circuit events (there were 5 such events around the country, held prior to the WSOP in Las Vegas) and the 9 final table participants in the WSOP main event would qualify, for a maximum of 109 people. There was a $2 million prize pool, with $1 million going to the winner. But when the time came for the tournament, they decided that there wasn't enough star power in the group for TV and they added three big names - Brunson, Chan and Hellmuth - to the participants despite the fact that none of them had qualified under the rules.
This is blatantly unfair to the participants who qualified fair and square. It seriously dilutes their expected value in the tournament, especially since those three all made it into the top 15 of the tournament. Hellmuth, in fact, was the chip leader going into the final table. Mike Matusow ended up winning, and at least he did qualify for it by making the final table of the main event. But Hellmuth's money (only the final table got paid) frankly should be given back to the players who actually qualified. As poker moves out of the dusty back rooms and into the spotlight, things like this will kill its credibility quickly. Thankfully some prominent players, like Danny Negreanu and Paul Phillips, are speaking out against it.
By the way, Mike Matusow ended up winning and he hammered Hellmuth the entire time about not qualifying fairly for the tournament. I hope they leave all that chatter in there. The final three were Matusow, Hellmuth and Hoyt Corkins - the two biggest loudmouths in the game of poker and a good ol' boy who never says anything at the table. Corkins must have felt like he needed a bottle of tequila by the end of that game. The show will air on Christmas Eve.
- Log in to post comments
The combination of Hellmuth and motormouth Matusow jabbering away might make me go all Elvis on my televion. Oy.
Picking which one to root for would be like choosing between anthrax and plague.
Too true! Very well put.
I'd have to say I don't see the big deal on this. I would liken it to a golf tournament where you have a regular field of competitors who qualified via regular means, but there are also a number of "sponsor exceptions", players who did not qualify but who are invited to participate anyway. That's how you get a Michelle Wie, for instance, playing in a men's PGA event.
Isn't a Texas Hold'Em tournament supposed to be the last pure meritocracy? The qualification criteria were not unduly restrictive, IMO, and I'm offended that a sphincter like Hellmuth was included because the TV people think his assclownery makes "good television." I've got less of a problem with Johnny Chan and Texas Dolly, but I would not be surprised if I heard that Brunson was a bit embarrassed by being grandfathered in.
I was going to make a remark about golf being an inapt comparison, but on reflection, both games are a combination of skill and luck. There's a good bit more luck in poker, but it's not entirely missing from golf. On the other hand, in golf you expect the old-boy network stuff, but in poker it's supposed to be dog-eat-dog.
Jeff Hebert wrote:
And if that was said up front, I'd have no problem with it. But there was nothing in the entry rules that said anything about such exemptions, it just contained the criteria for qualifying. It's the fact that they changed the rules after people had spent a great deal of money trying to qualify that is dishonest and wrong.
As far as Matusow goes, he's starting to grow on me some. Several people whose judgement I trust, like Paul Phillips and Phil Gordon, say that he's really a decent guy. And seeing him go after Hellmuth makes him much more likable to me. I've also seen him be able to make fun of himself, which makes someone a lot more likable to me as well. Hellmuth can't do that.
Pieter wrote:
Well, I have the same problem with any of them being admitted, though I have much higher regard for Chan and Brunson than for Hellmuth. I'm a little disappointed that they didn't turn down the invitation, but it's also possible that they didn't know what the initial rules had said. Once it was pointed out by Danny that this was out of line, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Chan and Brunson feel bad about it and that they would not have played if they'd realized that. Hellmuth, on the other hand, I would guess would probably think that the rules should be broken for him because he's a superstar, baby.
I think it would say a lot now if Chan and Brunson, especially Brunson, would come out and say, "They're right, we should not have been invited to play if we had not qualified and if I get an invitation like that again, I'll make sure it was within the rules before accepting it." Dolly is the voice of poker and him saying that would probably end the practice on the spot.
I like this story.
At a final table with so much at stake, and with so many combustible personalities, an explosion was foreseeable. What wasn't expected was who would light the fuse. Bothered by Phil Hellmuth's constant toying with his chips, and not stacking them in a conventional manner which allowed them to be easily counted by opponents, Steve Dannenmann had enough and insisted that Hellmuth cease his covert chip activities. Hellmuth refused. That brought about a barrage of insults that made for great television, but which certainly detracted from the jovial spirit which had characterized the final table up to that point.
"I don't understand why you can't stack your chips like everyone else," the normally reserved Dannenmann declared. "You are disrespecting the game."
Still, Hellmuth refused to comply.
"I'm here playing as an amateur, and I know I'm up against professionals," Dannenmann said. "You above everyone else should know the rules...you sell all those books and products. But you aren't a professional - you're a punk!"
Priceless!
I am wondering if the decision to include these "name" players also had something to do with contracts between FullTilt poker and Brunson's Room companies in supporting or co-sponsoring the events for TV? There certainly seems to be an increasing number of these .com enterprises that are linked directly to TV and Cable companies. It isn't as though the three don't have enough other opportunities to be on the TV schedules, as they share the most number of WSOP bracelets between them.