The Poker Hall of Fame - Controversy, Humour and Disagreements with Channing and Citrone.

Sky_Dave

The latest edition of 'The Rail' is now up on YouTube and I reckon it's an absolutely cracking episode!

Why?

You have two very strongly opinionated poker experts (Neil and Carlo) clashing (although very respectfully) over one of the most contentious issues in poker at the moment. Heck, it's even got Daniel Negreanu's back up.... yes, the Poker Hall of Fame Nominations. Daniel doesn't want to see Annie Duke added. Neil doesn't either. He also doesn't think Scotty Nguyen will make it in but he does want a wager on one man in particular. It's all very interesting stuff.

From the list, who would you like to see in the Poker Hall of Fame? Do you agree with Neil's views on those who can't win? Lots and LOTS of talking points in this episode, so go on.... what do YOU think?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZHs6GTMsUo - The Poker Rail: Poker Hall of Fame, WSOPE and UKOPS.

There are some great one-liners from Mr Channing and Carlo, too. Enjoy!

Eyeman

Carlo shows a huge lack of understanding for a change. 

The over 40 rule is to show longevity. If Phil Ivey retired / died tomorrow, he would still make it into the hall of fame after his 40th birthday.

I do wonder about him sometimes!

scotty77

I don't really care about things like this.  The players nominated have no revelance to me so why should I care.

One thing that is shocking tho is how Annie Duke is up for the prize.  Guess it shows that the people who run these kind of awards have no clue about the average poker fan/railer, and I suspect she is nominated thru friends/networking...

Eyeman

+1, Ryan.

I only commented because Carlo is incapable of being wrong, even when it's patently obvious that he is.

Sky_Claire

In Response to Re: The Poker Hall of Fame - Controversy, Humour and Disagreements with Channing and Citrone.:

+1, Ryan. I only commented because Carlo is incapable of being wrong, even when it's patently obvious that he is.
Posted by Eyeman

I don't think its about being right or wrong, its a matter of opinion.

pilgrim07

In Response to Re: The Poker Hall of Fame - Controversy, Humour and Disagreements with Channing and Citrone.:

I don't really care about things like this.  The players nominated have no revelance to me so why should I care. One thing that is shocking tho is how Annie Duke is up for the prize.  Guess it shows that the people who run these kind of awards have no clue about the average poker fan/railer, and I suspect she is nominated thru friends/networking...
Posted by scotty77

  I guess this shows that you really do care about things like this, Scotty. But I do agree with your other points regarding how the average player feels about the nomination/voting procedure.

Sky_Dave

He might have been wrong on the technicality (not that I am 100% sure myself), but it's interesting to think that, no matter which way you look at it, someone like Tom Dwan can't be considered for the Hall of Fame.

How many times has it been mentioned now that young online players play as many hands in say 2-3 years as Doyle Brunson has? While I am not arguing they are equal in stature because of it, doesn't the fact that the game itself has accelerated so quickly mean something like the over 40 rule is a bit archaic?

hurst05

Pryce6 for poker hall of fame!

BrownnDog

What happened to the Sky Poker hall of fame?

Sky_Dave

In Response to Re: The Poker Hall of Fame - Controversy, Humour and Disagreements with Channing and Citrone.:

What happened to the Sky Poker hall of fame?
Posted by BrownnDog

Shhh, Lewis.

jesusdog22

the sky poker hall of fame....really.. i will dust of my suit !!!!

spornybol

In Response to Re: The Poker Hall of Fame - Controversy, Humour and Disagreements with Channing and Citrone.:

the sky poker hall of fame....really.. i will dust of my suit !!!!
Posted by jesusdog22

don`t you mean robe ?????

rancid

hall of fame entry should be judged over a period of years, which it is.

So when you reach the age of 40 your accessed

Don't know what the fuss is about, it would seem Carlo and Channing should just get a room because there's far too much sexual tension between them - shock !!!!

Eyeman

In Response to Re: The Poker Hall of Fame - Controversy, Humour and Disagreements with Channing and Citrone.:

He might have been wrong on the technicality (not that I am 100% sure myself), but it's interesting to think that, no matter which way you look at it, someone like Tom Dwan can't be considered for the Hall of Fame. How many times has it been mentioned now that young online players play as many hands in say 2-3 years as Doyle Brunson has? While I am not arguing they are equal in stature because of it, doesn't the fact that the game itself has accelerated so quickly mean something like the over 40 rule is a bit archaic?
Posted by Sky_Dave

I'm not particularly a fan of the whole "hall of fame" culture they have in the USA. However, in most sports you have to be retired for 5 years before you can be...ahem...inducted.

As poker doesn't really have a retirement age, they came up with a 40 year-old cut-off. IMHO, this is still fairly young (most sportsmen will be between 40 and 45, 5 years after retirement), but seems ae extremely fair and reasonable compromise.

The fact that you may have played more hands by the age of 22 than Doyle Brunson is irrelevant. 

A baseball player might, by the age of 30, have hit more home runs than anyone else in the history of the game - he still won't be considered.

@ mother - when I said Carlo was wrong - he was  It was specifically regarding his comment that if Phil Ivey retired tomorrow he'd never enter the hall of fame - that's just wrong factually.