In November, Erik Seidel and Dan Harrington were enshrined in the Poker Hall of Fame. In the weeks leading up to the announcement of their selection, opinion after opinion was given as to why certain players should be honored and certain others should not. What was interesting to me about all of the arguments was that the reasons for and against players varied so wildly. But why is this?
The Poker Hall of Fame is a much different animal than other sports’ Halls of Fames, namely because the criteria for enshrinement are so much more vague and subjective. Let’s look at the Poker Hall of Fame’s criteria:
• A player must have played poker against acknowledged top competition
• Played for high-stakes
• Played consistently well, gaining the respect of peers
• Stood the test of time
• Or, for non-players, contributed to the overall growth and success of the game of poker, with indelible positive and lasting results.
Now, compare that to the criteria for the Baseball Hall of Fame:
• A baseball player must have been active as a player in the Major Leagues at some time during a period beginning 20 years before and ending five years prior to election.
• Player must have played in each 10 Major League championship seasons.
• Player shall have ceased to be an active player in the Major Leagues at least five calendar years preceding the election, but may be otherwise connected with baseball.
Right away, we can see some obvious differences. Poker Hall of Famers must have stood the “test of time.” What does that mean? Most people already consider Phil Ivey one of the best poker players to have ever lived, yet he only started playing in the late 1990s. Is 10+ years enough if you are that good? Why will another 10 or 20 years make Ivey more qualified? Baseball, on the other hand, clearly defines its longevity requirements.
In poker, while I think we all have some sort of idea of what “top competition” is, it is still a nebulous concept. Baseball has an obvious top level, the Major Leagues.
Beyond that, though, the toughest thing about determining who deserves to be in the Poker Hall of Fame versus other sports is evaluating performance. Baseball, basketball, football, and other sports have scads of statistics with which we can compare players. We can look at a hitter’s on base percentage and home run totals, we can easily compare one pitcher’s strikeout numbers and earned run average to another’s. Sure, there are debates every year about who is deserving and who is not, but there are concrete, black and white figures to study.
In poker, it is not as easy. The only real solid historical data we have is for land-based tournaments. We all know, however, that there is more to poker than brick and mortar tournaments. While tournaments get all of the attention because of the excitement, prestige, and television coverage, most professional players make their living in cash games. There are no records of live cash game results – the only evidence we have of who the winning players are is the testimony of other players. Online, there are sites that track internet results, but their data is incomplete and, considering their controversial standing in the industry, it isn’t even a certainty that they will be around in the long-term.
And speaking of online, there is an entire generation of internet players making names for themselves now. They are able to play many more hands and many more tournaments in a short period of time than players were able to 20 years ago, so should we redefine the already ambiguous “test of time” for them? What if a player decides to eschew live games entirely and puts together an impressive record of online tournament finishes and/or cash game winnings? Would the old guard consider him a potential Hall of Famer?
Consider, as well, that it is generally much more difficult to win a tournament nowadays than it was even as recently as the beginning of this century because the fields are so much bigger. Remember, the legendary Doyle Brunson only had to defeat a combined 54 opponents in his back-to-back WSOP wins.
The difficulty in objectively evaluating Poker Hall of Fame candidates means that voters often need to use subjective criteria to make their determinations, hence the “contributed to the overall growth and success of the game of poker” phrase, although I feel that applies to players and non-players alike.
Look at Mike Sexton, for example. While he has been a big name on the poker scene for decades, he only has one WSOP bracelet, is only 206th on the all-time WSOP money list, and only 90th on the all-time overall money list (69th when adjusting for inflation). Those are nothing to sneeze at, but his tournament results don’t scream Hall of Famer. But it’s Sexton’s role in popularizing the game of poker as both the face of the World Poker Tour and PartyPoker that likely earned him his well-deserved spot in the Hall of Fame last year. There’s a reason he is called the “Ambassador of Poker.”
Even one of this year’s inductees, Dan Harrington, might not necessarily be considered a lock if we just looked at his documented tournament results. Yes, he has a few very significant accomplishments. He has a WSOP Main Event championship, accomplished what may be the most impressive feat in WSOP history when he placed third and fourth against large fields in 2003 and 2004, has one other WSOP bracelet, and won a WPT championship in 2007. All great, but for a guy that’s older than many current poker stars’ grandparents, his significant tournament results are relatively few.
And in recent years, apart from the 2007 WPT title, he’s been almost non-existent. Harrington is without a doubt a fantastic player and has had a tremendous career, but again, does his record make him a Hall of Fame lock? It’s debatable. But when you factor in that he wrote some of the most influential poker books of all time, helping develop the skills of subsequent generations of players, his place in the poker pantheon is cemented.
And again, remember that we don’t have records of how well these guys have done in cash games, so like the actual game of poker, evaluating a player for the Hall of Fame is a task with incomplete information. But I guess that’s all part of the fun, right?