Poker News / Short-Stacked Shamus / 01 October 2010 / Leave a Comment

The 2010 World Series of Poker Europe has concluded, at which five more WSOP gold bracelets were awarded. Phil Laak and Gus Hansen each claimed his first ever bracelet, and 2009 WSOP Player of the Year Jeff Lisandro picked up his fifth. And a couple of Englanders, Scott Shelley and James Bord, won their first bracelets, too, with Bord following in the footsteps of Annette Obrestad, John Juanda, and Barry Shulman as a WSOPE Main Event winner.

While following the WSOPE over the last couple of weeks, my sense was there was more attention given to the events by poker fans here in the U.S. than in previous years. The victories by Laak, Hansen, and Lisandro -- all well-known figures in poker who have been frequently featured on the various poker TV programs -- certainly helped attract interest, as did the relatively deep Main Event runs of Barry Greenstein (23rd), Phil Ivey (19th), the mysterious Viktor Blom (16th), and few others.

Among all the talk about this year's events were a few debates regarding the WSOPE and its significance, broadly speaking. Among these debates I thought three stood out as especially interesting,

1. Are WSOPE bracelets "real" bracelets?

I mentioned a couple of weeks back how when the WSOPE was first introduced arguments immediately began over whether or not the bracelets awarded in London should be considered "real" WSOP bracelets and/or be counted in those "all-time bracelets won" lists.

From the start, Harrah's maintained that WSOPE bracelets were to be considered the equivalent of the ones awarded in Las Vegas each summer. Still, even before those first events took place in September 2007, there were those who did not believe the WSOPE bracelets could be regarded as the same simply because Harrah's said so.

Those debates were revived over the past couple of weeks, perhaps because of the fact that Laak and Hansen both won their first-ever bracelets in London, and Lisandro's win now gives him five bracelets, pushing him further up the all-time list.

When asked last week about the issue on the web-streaming weekly show "This Week in Poker," World Poker Tour Executive Tour Director Matt Savage said that he didn't "think it's like a real bracelet" primarily because a WSOPE bracelet was awarded outside of the WSOP's birthplace, Las Vegas. "The WSOP was founded in Las Vegas," explained Savage. "That's kind of what it's about, so I don't think those bracelets [i.e., the ones awarded in London at the WSOPE] are as valuable."

The Entities at Wicked Chops -- who host "This Week in Poker" -- made a post this week highlighting Savage's comment, and Ty Stewart, Vice President of Harrah's/WSOP, responded by defending the value of WSOPE bracelets (while also criticizing the bracelets the WPT began awarding the winners of its tourneys a couple of years back). "You tell Phil Laak and Gus Hansen they didn't earn real bracelets here in London," objected Stewart, maintaining that they certainly had.

Phil Hellmuth, the all-time leader in WSOP bracelets won with 11, also chimed in on the subject this week. He was interviewed on the Hardcore Poker Show (the 9/27/10 episode) where he said he believed a WSOPE bracelet was "not the same thing" as a regular WSOP bracelets, adding that "everybody knows it's not really a bracelet."

Meanwhile, polls this week on PokerNews and in the Two Plus Two forums both showed about 60% of respondents agreeing that WSOPE bracelets were "as valuable" or "equal to" the ones earned in Vegas. Clearly this remains a hot topic, even after four years of the WSOPE.

2. The WSOPE and the WSOP Player of the Year race

Donnie Peters of PokerNews brought up another interesting point this week with regard to the WSOPE and its significance, noting how the events played in London are in fact not counted toward the yearly WSOP Player of the Year race. Peters recommends that WSOPE events be counted along with the summer events, offering several reasons why he believes a change should be made.

Among those reasons he offers for making the change, Peters believes doing so will help make the WSOPE events (and their bracelets) indeed appear of similar value to the Vegas ones.

"This [change] should especially be done if the WSOP wants all bracelets, no matter what continent you win them on, to be considered equal," argues Peters. "If you want something to be considered equal, you have to give it the same level ground to stand on."

Peters offers other arguments as well, including the fact that extending the POY race to London would perhaps encourage more players to make the trip each year. But I think his point that doing so would better fit with Harrah's desire to have the WSOPE events considered the equivalent of the Vegas ones is especially persuasive, and I wouldn't be surprised to see this idea implemented in 2011.

3. Too many bracelets?

Of course, having more bracelets awarded at the WSOPE further adds to the already expanding number of bracelets being won each year. With the WSOPE adding a fifth event this year, that means all told there will be a whopping 62 bracelets won in 2010.

This particular debate predates the WSOPE, of course, extending back to when the number of preliminary events first began to increase significantly. Looking back through the history of the WSOP, notice how the number of events has dramatically risen over the years:

1970 - 1
1971 - 5
1972 - 2
1973 - 8
1974 - 6
1975 - 5
1976 - 8
1977 - 13
1978 - 11
1979 - 12

1980 - 12
1981 - 13
1982 - 14
1983 - 14
1984 - 14
1985 - 14
1986 - 12
1987 - 12
1988 - 12
1989 - 14

1990 - 15
1991 - 18
1992 - 20
1993 - 21
1994 - 21
1995 - 24
1996 - 24
1997 - 22
1998 - 21
1999 - 16

2000 - 24
2001 - 26
2002 - 35
2003 - 36
2004 - 33
2005 - 45
2006 - 45
2007 - 55 (WSOP) + 3 (WSOPE) = 58
2008 - 55 (WSOP) + 4 (WSOPE) = 59
2009 - 57 (WSOP) + 4 (WSOPE) = 61

2010 - 57 (WSOP) + 5 (WSOPE) = 62

(Incidentally, bracelets weren't awarded at those first WSOPs, as it wasn't until the mid-1970s that the tradition began.)

One assumes we will not be seeing a decrease in the total number of events at the WSOP and the WSOPE next year. And there will be still another bracelet awarded next year, too, upon the culmination of the WSOP-Circuit series in May 2010.

Players who perform well in events at the dozen or so WSOP-C events between August 2010 and May 2011 will win their way into a "WSOP Circuit National Championship" that will take place at Caesars Palace just prior to the 2011 WSOP, the winner of which will be awarded a WSOP gold bracelet. All of which leads some to wonder -- where might it all end? 100 bracelets per year? 200?

On the one hand, no one particularly desires controversy or criticism. But I think that overall such debates regarding the WSOPE are a good thing, proving that many are not only interested in what happens in London each September, but are also interested in seeing it succeed and indeed become an even more significant stop on the tourney trail.

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comment: