WSOP E Real Bracelet or Not?

[SmokeyRidesAgain]

[ QUOTE ]
its liek the heavyweight belt and the european belt in wwe... not the same thing

[/ QUOTE ]
Yea except more rigged obv.


R U FKIN KIDDING ME

[Bavid Denyamine]

[ QUOTE ]
lol at most of you even discussing this when 75% of you won't even play in a WSOP event let alone WSOPE

[/ QUOTE ]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=aF8wLg5Asgo

[shaniac]

If WSOP (USA) bracelets are "real," then these WSOP-E are not. What makes WSOP bracelets special, if anything, is the quantity and centralization of poker players for those events (edit: also, most of all, the tradition), not the class of the field. The whole bracelet business is mostly hype and nonsense to begin with, so it's irrelevant which way you vote.

[Bavid Denyamine]

like most of the time, i agree with shaniac

[88jayhawks]

one of Doyle's bracelets came in a team event when he was paired with a women, and they count that towards his total of 10 even though it was a team event.

[shaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
one of Doyle's bracelets came in a team event when he was paired with a women, and they count that towards his total of 10 even though it was a team event.

[/ QUOTE ]

Orly, did not know that!

thanks.

[Eagles]

Everyone who's saying ZOMG the events are great fields it should for sure count. Do you think WPT events should be bracelet events? What about the WCOOP ME?

[Wolverine]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone who's saying ZOMG the events are great fields it should for sure count. Do you think WPT events should be bracelet events? What about the WCOOP ME?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they're not part of the WSOP brand.

[ZeeJustin]

When Hellmuth wins his 12th bracelet in London, there won't be any asterisk by his name, just like there wasn't any asterisk by the names of all the people that won 20 person events, or the people that played terribly and sucked out repeatedly to win.

WSOP is the brand, and WSOP is in charge of what counts. Their lists will include London numbers as well, so whether or not you think these bracelets should count is irrelevant.

And those of you that are arguing that these are too easy to win and aren't prestigious enough are wrong on two accounts. The fields are probably tougher than they are in Vegas, and bracelets have never necessarily been tough to win anyway. Look at the fields 20 years ago and tell me that you really think THESE bracelets are too easy to win.

The bracelet club hasn't been an exclusive club to be a part of in decades.

[BJ Nemeth]

Unfortunately for the poker world, this decision rests largely in the hands of the poker media, because we are the hype machine that trumpets these numbers. As one of the leading poker reporters, I thought I'd weigh in with my thoughts.

Do I think a WSOP-E bracelet will be considered *identical* to a WSOP bracelet? No.

Do I think a WSOP-E bracelet should be *respected* the same as a WSOP bracelet? Yes.

The only case where the first question matters is when you're tracking records like Hellmuth's, or if you are talking about whether or not a particular player has ever won a "bracelet."

In terms of the career record, it depends on your point of view. For example, if Johnny Chan were to win a WSOP-E bracelet for his 11th "bracelet," do you think Hellmuth would consider it a true tie? On the flip side, if Hellmuth were to win a WSOP-E bracelet for his 12th "bracelet," do you really think he *wouldn't* count it?

The media currently tracks all major poker titles separately -- WSOP bracelets, WPT titles, EPT titles, WSOP Circuit championships, along with other major events like Aussie Millions, NBC Heads-Up, etc. They are all generally considered to be "majors," but they are still listed separately. (Online championships like WCOOP and FTOPS should fit in there somewhere as well.)

Based on these inaugural events, the WSOP Europe certainly deserves to be on that list, so it will be added as a new (but separate) "major." The WSOP-E bracelets aren't worth more or less than a traditional WSOP bracelet (except when going for career WSOP records), but they *are* different.

Even the players consider the WSOP Europe to be different -- the relatively low turnout proves that. If most players considered WSOP-E bracelets to be identical to WSOP bracelets, I believe the turnout would have been much higher. (I'll admit that the weak satellite situation was also a big factor in the turnout, but still ...)

Here are a few real-world examples for how these bracelets will be considered to be separate from "regular" WSOP bracelets.

1. The first player to win *two* WSOP Europe bracelets will be hyped by *that* fact, and not merely added to the bottom of the list of dozens and dozens of players who have won multiple bracelets.

2. The first player to win both a WSOP bracelet and a WSOP Europe bracelet will be hyped by that fact -- much more than somebody who merely won their second WSOP bracelet.

3. The first female player to win a WSOP-E bracelet will be hyped by that fact, and not put in line behind the dozens of other women who already have WSOP bracelets.

It's similar to the reason that Roland De Wolfe is hyped as the only player to win both a WPT title and an EPT title. There's no correlation between those two feats (other than being considered "majors"), but because the names are similar, we (the media) treat is as more special than winning, say, Aussie Millions and a WPT title. The fact that the WSOP and the WSOP-E are run by the same corporate entity doesn't matter. A PokerStars WCOOP victory doesn't get lumped in with an EPT victory -- yet they are organized by the same corporate entity.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

I'm currently working on a project that I hope will make more sense out of this very issue -- ranking the world's major poker tournaments. I'll have more info on that in the next month or two.