Talk:World Series of Poker

Gambling: Poker High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gambling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gambling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GamblingWikipedia:WikiProject GamblingTemplate:WikiProject GamblingGambling articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Poker (assessed as High-importance).

WikiProject Gambling To-do:

Current collaborations:

Improve an article to FA

Improve an article to A

Help with the Gambling articles needing attention.
Tag the talk pages of Gambling-related articles with the {{WikiProject Gambling}} banner.
The link to the Missouri gambling site is now out of date and needs to be updated.
Japan section reads as though it was written by the gambling industry - quotes of 160% returns are 'citation needed'.

Nevada (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nevada, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NevadaWikipedia:WikiProject NevadaTemplate:WikiProject NevadaNevada articles

Linking players names

It would be nice to be consistent about which players deserve to have their names hyperlinked, and which players do not. I'm inclined to linkify the names of all players -- not only is that consistent, it also encourages contributors to write articles for each player (if you've won the WSOP, there's probably justification for a Wikipedia article on you). Any agree/disagree? Neilc 22:44, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've linked them all. Although some links are going to be red, or link to stubby articles, for a while I don't think there is a better way of determining how to cut people off in terms of signficance. Pcb21| Pete 18:09, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

CryptoDerk made the suggestion of including "second-tier" poker bios in PokerWiki. I think that's a good idea although I don't yet see a lot of enthusiasm in that community for writing bios. I would think anyone who actually won a WSOP Main Event, or probably multiple bracelets in the other events, deserves a Wikipedia entry. Beyond that it seems a little esoteric, but I'm eager to hear other opinions. - PhilipR 20:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It says in the article, "Annie Duke surprised the world defeating 1989 Main Event winner Phil Hellmuth in the final hand." I have two objections to this: First, it wasn't that big of a surprise that she won; after all, she's been a pro gambler for at least ten years. And second, saying that she won on the last hand is redundant. All poker tournaments are decided on the last hand. Quicksilvre 22:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler warning

I added the spoiler warning to this article because even though this event is over, ESPN televisizes the tournament several weeks later, and in fact started broadcasting the first episodes last night, which is what prompted me to read this article in the first place. While I wasn't upset to find this year's winner published here, some of our other readers might be. However, I generally don't engage in edit wars, so I'll not add it back in. Gentgeen 18:27, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The winner, Greg Raymer, was given a full-treatment in the media when he won recently (before ESPN began televising). Additionally, even ESPN has his name in articles on their website, as the winner. Jewbacca 18:33, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
I have to agree with Jewbacca. If we start to add spoiler warnings to actual events we open up a right can of worms. For instance the 2003 WSOP has only just begun being televised in the UK. The 2004 might or might not ever be shown (depending on viewing figures for the 2003 event). How on earth would we know when to cut the spoiler warning out of the article? The only reasonable thing to do is not have it all, sorry. Pcb21| Pete 19:11, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, they were airing commercials for online poker with Moneymaker and Rayner during the airing of the 2004 WSOP tourney... so it a spoiler warning really defeats the purpose anyway,--Madchester 14:22, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

re: "Golden Ovaries" nickname -- looks like vandalism, but it's not.

The world of poker nicknames certainly is wide and colorful. How about adding a reference to the article for this one so it doesn't look so much like vandalism?

Further, does anyone else share an interest in adding good references where appropriate for the rest of the article as well? Un focused 17:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of references? Also, any reference should be in the Lucy Rokach article, not this one.

(Actually I had not known of the Golden Ovaries nickname until I saw a preview of the World Speed Poker Open, but that is apparently the nickname she is going by.) Essexmutant 23:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Main Event Overview

This has grown considerably, but still contains a lot of valuable information. I would suggest moving it to another page, as the current page size of World Series of Poker is approaching 4 times the recommended amount. Any objections? Essexmutant 15:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First it should be pruned to remove all "notable others" and list only "notables" at the final table. The way it is now is trite and even offensive. There needs to be some criteria... final table or perhaps top 25 if they have an Wikipedia article. A 76 finish is of no interest whatsoever, unless it was maybe the Pope. I'd say top 25 + a wikipedia article gets a person listed... with a limit of no more than ten notables for a year, so if #2 through #11 have articles, those are the ones listed. And as long as I'm at it, these flags should be eliminated. They are often wrong or just plain ridiculous... Amir Vahedi gets and Iranian flag while Scotty Nguyen gets a US one? That's just silly. Negreanu gets a Canadian one but Tiffany Williamson has a US one? There may be no more inconsistent and flat out wrong article information in the wikipedia than this one. 2005 20:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you consider to be "trite and offensive" here. Perhaps you'd like to expand on this.
I'm happy to help trim down the number of people per year. Your criteria seems reasonable.
As for the flags, Amir Vahedi's article does not say he is American anywhere. Tiffany Williamson, on the other hand, has said that she considers herself to be an American despite living in England. If you would prefer to have a blanket method, then I suggest using either birth country or the flag used in the Hendon Mob's database.
Even if it is trimmed down, it will still be over the page size limit. So, where do we stand on moving the whole of the Main Event section to a separate page regardless of the above? Essexmutant 09:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest removing the table completely, except the winner, and then links to articles on the specific years, where the remaining notables, with either the criteria I suggested or something else, could be linked. Picking and choosing people finishing in the top 100 is arbritrary and basically rude in that others aren't "notable" to be mentioned. I'd dispense with the flags completely as they don't make sense a large percentage of the time. Many players are born elsewhere but live in the US, and have for years and years. I suppose birth country would be better than current country if the flags were to be kept. I'm sure the Vietnamese guys though would want the old South Vietnam flag rather than the current one. 2005 10:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, everyone listed is notable enough to have a Wikipeia article (except Barabra Enright.) I'm going to suggest keeping the flags, as they are also included at Late Night Poker, Ultimate Poker Challenge, World Poker Tour, Poker Superstars Invitational Tournament, Professional Poker Tour, etc. (It also helps to show the increased number of non-Americans to place in the WSOP, as opposed to its early years.) Also happy to go with birth country. I can have a go at creating separate pages for each year's WSOP if that's what you are suggesting. Is that agreeable? Essexmutant 10:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine, if you are willing to take on the consistency task that would be great. Some of the WSOP's already have their own pages, so it would be a cool task if every year got a nice consistent article (although obviously newer ones would be more in depth). I'd still though defintely keep notables to the final table or the top 30 at most. It is rather random as to why some people have articles and others don't, so it makes little sense to be listing people who finish in the 40s or 70s, just because someone made an article. Likewise any of the "day one" eliminations in recent years. Those are just silly as dozens of people with articles or without could be listed. 2005 20:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a start on this by trimming down the notable finishers on this page to just the top 30. I have also created pages for WSOP 1998, WSOP 1999, WSOP 2000, WSOP 2001, WSOP 2002 and WSOP 2003 and done some editing on WSOP 2004. Comments welcome of course. When there is a page for each WSOP I'll cut down the Main Event section to just the winners. (That'll probably be a few weeks yet.) Essexmutant 12:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. 2005 07:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I've carried on by creating WSOP 1983, WSOP 1984, WSOP 1985, WSOP 1986, WSOP 1987, WSOP 1988, WSOP 1989, WSOP 1990, WSOP 1991, WSOP 1992, WSOP 1993, WSOP 1994, WSOP 1995, WSOP 1996 and WSOP 1997. Essexmutant 15:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update - just to confirm (as I'm sure many have noticed) that articles for each year of the WSOP now exist. Essexmutant 16:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winning hands?

There are some unexplained card pairs marked after the names of the winners of each tournament. I think they should be explained somewhere because it's uncertain to - at least for me - what they do mean.

That's why we have a link to the article on poker. On Wikipedia, we tend to like to use links to explain that sort of thing unless it's absolutely necessary. Cuts down on redundancy. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 21:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could be made into a separate column (it's the winning hand of each tournament, if known.) Any thoughts? Essexmutant 09:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibooks has a hand rankings article here. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 18:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean that the hand ranking should be explained. It would be completely unnecessary here. What I mean is that somewhere next to that table of winners there should be a text that would tell the reader what those two cards are and why they're mentioned here. Currently this is not mentioned and unaware readers may be guessing what does those two cards mean. To get an answer these users now start guessing which link tells the truth: is it the tournament page or the page about the winner. Those winning hands could actually have their own column in the table.

I made the column entry more clear. It could have its own column but it seems okay to me how it is now. 2005 22:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the community cards be listed as well? Listing the pocket cards alone is a bit pointless without the community cards. For example, it lists Moneymaker in 2003 with a 5 & 4 unsuited, but what did he win with? A straight? Trip 5's? There is no mention of the full house he actually won with. --Holderca1 18:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flag changes

A question for 2005 and any other interested parties. We discussed above changing some of the flags around, and the preferance appears to be on birth country. I'll start off by changing everyone in Category:Vietnamese poker players to the South Vietnam flag (). Is it worth me changing Johnny Chan and David Chiu to China whilst doing it? Once this is out of the way, we can look further at some of the others. Essexmutant 11:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say yes... I mean it is worth doing in terms of consistent correctness, not necessarily that it is a high priority use of your time. 2005 20:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To make the encyclopedia of the most value, it should add value. It's not necessarily something I'll do in a short space of time, but I'll get round to it at some stage. Essexmutant 21:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I've changed the flags for everyone in Category:Vietnamese poker players. I'll have a look at some of the others soon. Essexmutant 18:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2nd update - Johnny Chan and David Chiu now changed also. Essexmutant 17:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems silly. Is it even needed? Is the flag shown during the award ceremony? I don't think so but if it is then that's probably the only reason to include. Chess champion has similar problems. Bobby Fischer is no longer a US citizen. The Russians were born in USSR, even though their country of origin states Russia. I'd prefer to get rid of it, and have the appropriate articles on the players mention their own nationality, as they see it. Putting it here just seems like a good chance to be picky and choosy for nationalism or some such. --M a s 21:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to have flags and lots of reasons not to have them. They are only appropriate on pages for "team" style tournaments. People don't play for a country, and may in fact despise their birth country. Nationalism has nothing whatever to do with a tournament like this, or poker for that matter. It's like including their shoe size. 2005 23:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1970 Number of Entrants

In the origins section it mentions there were 7 players. In the table it shows 38 entrants. What am I missing?

Sucker straight 15:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is odd. I found "The epic battle between Moss and the Greek sparked an idea in Benny Binion’s head, and in 1970 he invited the best poker players he knew, including Johnny Moss, Doyle Brunson, Amarillo Slim Preston, Brian “Sailor” Roberts, Puggy Pearson, Crandall Addington, and Carl Cannon to play No-Limit Texas Hold’em against each other in front of a crowd" Since it says "including" and lists 7 names, I'm guessing the 38 is correct. (Unattributed response by Mateo_LeFou)

T♦?

As far as i can tell, i have no clue as to what this card is. What is a T? Does it mean 10? if so it should be changed to 10 as the other examples are. Lebanese Sam Farha J♥ T♦ OKH 18:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- In response, T♦ (or Td) is the commonly accepted shorthand for ten of diamonds. It's written out this way so that all of the cards, deuce through ace, can be represented with just one character. It also groups the ten in with the other broadway cards, TJQKA. [TS]

A cap on WSOP entrants?

Someone noted on this page that there is an "official cap" of 8000 in the Main Event; however, this is not confirmable. Barry Shulman reported on his blog[1] that there is absolutely no cap and Harrah's will try to accomodate as many players as possible. Lastly, as the Main Event is an "open" event, Harrah's could be subject to legal problems if they capped the event at a certain amount of entrants. I have deleted all references to a cap on entrants.

Clearly there's no point in mentioning that here when we'll know the facts in a few weeks anyway. --LDC 17:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been speculated on a few sites that this year the WSOP Main Event will be split into two events--one for professionals or credentialed personel, and one open to the public; opening up the TOC to winners from both. Thechrismoon

I would find this extremely hard to believe. SubSeven 01:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too...I would think that they want the size of first place to get as big as it can. What better advertising can there be than that. Plus, they make a fair amount by hosting the tournament. I just find this unlikely, and certainly the rumors of it are not noteworthy. If it happens, then it should go in. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First WSOP?

The original World Series of Poker was started in 1969 by Tom Moore of San Antonio, Texas at the Holiday Hotel and Casino in Reno and was an invitational event. This inaugural event was won by Crandell Addington

Later on it states that the 1970 WSOP was the first, and there is no article for the 1969 WSOP on wiki, while all other years are represented in articles and in the footer box for WSOP. So what's the deal with this 1969 tournament? Someone should clarify exactly what it was and how it is related to, but not included as a WSOP (unless I'm wrong about that and whatever it was should be clarified)... TheHYPO 06:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just read this article titled "No bluffing. World Series of Poker started in Reno"[2] in the article it mentions that by 1970 Benny Binion got the rights to the event and renamed it the World Series of Poker and moved it to Las Vegas Sirex98 11:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1971/72 WSOP?

I know I should mention this in the 1971 article, but I figure few are likely to see it there. In the GSN program 'anything to win' (a documentary series) on an episode about Amarillo Slim, they reference that in 1971 "Slim gave Moss a run for his money, but played second fiddle to Johnny's second straight title." I don't know if this is meant to imply that he actually came second, but someone else is listed as coming in second in that tournament. Is the show exaggerating, or is the article in error? (it seems to lack other details including everyone else who was at the final table)... If nothing else, he can be added to the list of those that were at the final table, even if his position is unknown.

According to Slim, he won the 72 table with a King and a Jack, though suits aren't mentioned. The flop was King-8-8, and Puggy's hand isn't described. Don't know if you can list the winning hand without the suits, but if it helps, there it is. TheHYPO 07:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From sneak peeks into NewspaperArchive via news.google: eg The Odessa American (Newspaper) - May 20, 1972, Odessa, Texas etc..

The final hand, with three eights, a king and a deuce on The table.. The final hand Friday. there were three A king and A deuce on The table. Slim had A king in his hand for A full bouse. Pug had A pair of sixes for A lesser full house. Dugodugo 12:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found the 1974 hand at last in http://www.johnnymoss.com/NewYorkerMossArticle.pdf. Got a little closer on the '72 hand, the kings were red. 145.221.52.72 (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to you! nice detective work! Addington: A♣ 2♣ Moss: 3♥ 3♠ flop 3♦ 9♣ 10♣ turn Q♠ river 9♦ for the full house! awesome! hate to think so much of this is lost to history, interesting they called hold'em Omaha before Omaha was played at the world series in the story on page 27 ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 09:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bracelets

I was looking for information regarding te bracelets themselves (how they have changed throughout the years) and started here. I think that would be an interesting article. CaseKid 23:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so did I... thus WSOP bracelet Balloonman 17:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

player of the year

"Beginning with the 2006 World Series of Poker, the Main Event had no effect on the outcome of the winner of the Player of the Year award." Well, 2005 also, right? Cunningham was in front before the Main Event.

Most Prestigious?

> The World Series of Poker is the most prestigious set of poker tournaments in the world.

"the most prestigious" is awfully POV. Not that I disagree that it is, but that's clearly someone's opinion. I'd suggest something more like 'The World Series of Poker is the longest running set of poker tournaments in the world'. Or maybe 'The World Series of Poker is an annual set of poker tournaments which has consistently had the most participants since 1968'. Not sure if that last one is true -- i'm just playing with wording.Jkister 06:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

> A fair question. Who or what determines what is the most prestigious? I think perhaps many if not most would agree that it almost certainly was at some point. But I also think after Moneymaker, or perhaps at some point since then, some would lessen its prestige. Do pros and bracelet winners determine what is the most prestigious or is it simply the voice of the masses? Some might suggest the WPT or other events are currently more prestigious, but those 'suffer' (or thrive as it were) from the same thing the WSOP does...a massive influx of amateurs. I would argue that whatever factors might be seen to reduce the WSOP in prestige can also be applied to any other poker event out there sans invitational events. In which case I would say that, due to participant numbers, historical acclaim, popular interest, prize numbers, and industry enthusiasm, that the WSOP Main Event is indeed the most prestigious open poker event in the world. AngryGerbil 07:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most pretigious is just unencyclopedic pov. Removing it hurts the article not at all. I added that the tournament is the largest, which it is by far. 2005 08:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's being WAY too pedantic. NPOV doesn't mean--nor was it ever intended to mean--that articles must be completely devoid of opinion, just that they should be attributed if they are at all controversial. Maybe if some other event comes close we'll have to revisit the issue, but I think for now there is absolutely no controversy in the statement at all. Every serious poker player and poker journalist you ask today will agree--it's all about the bracelets. Far from being "unencyclopedic", NOT including that perfectly accurate, useful, and important description would be doing a disservice to the readers. --LDC 08:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A diservice to our readers not to call it most prestigious??? Please, that's totally ridiculous. Articles should be devoid of opinion, and injecting when obviously not necessary is poor writing. In this case feeling a need to add to line is silly. The event speaks for itself. Let's keep trite, bombastic text out of articles. The line is not very controversial, but it's schoolyardish and unencyclopedic. 2005 08:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your interpretation of our NPOV policy is just too black and white. Read a few Britannica articles--they are certainly not "devoid of opinion". Good encyclopedias are full of opinions, as they should be, because expert opinion is valuable information. It's simply not possible to adequately cover any interesting subject with uncontroversial facts. Of course, paper encyclopedias have the advantage that they are written by well-known experts whose opinions are well respected. We don't often have that benefit here, so it makes sense to avoid non-expert opinion, but I just don't see that as a problem here. --LDC 04:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is adding opinion that plainly is not needed. It's the oldest, the largest, the richest... those are verifiable facts. We don't need to aggregate that with an opinion, especially when it could be interpreted as smack talk. Let the reality of the tournament speak for itself. 2005 07:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

> Most prestigious is a matter of opinion, but not necessarily that of the author of the article. Prestige, in anything, is arbitrary and is determined by the community. The poker community, by and large, does consider the WSOP to be the most prestigious tournament there is, therefore, it is the most prestigious. The opinion of the author doesn't even enter the picture. AngryGerbil 09:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delay of the Final Table

I removed to edits made in intro which read: "In 2008, the integrity of the game was brached by a corporate team effort between Harrah's and ESPN. They made it so that the Main Event would not play out to the finish. Instead, the corporate titans will stop the tournament once the Main Event reaches the final table of 9 players. Harrah's and ESPN picked an arbitrary date of November 9, 2008 to play out the final table. There is much controversy over this decision. Many players say it ruins the integrity of the game, while Harrah's and ESPN say it will allow the chance to make 'stars' out of the final 9 participants. The main problem players have with this, aside from the integrity of the game being ruined, is that the delay has no benefit to the players. In poker, the players put up 100% of the prize money, and also pay a 10-20% fee to the house. Harrah's and ESPN stand to be the only parties that will benefit financially from the delay of the final table. The players argue that half of the revenue gained from the delay should to be added to the prize pool and the Main Event should be made rake-free."

I don't care for what Harrah's did either however it should be written objectively see WP:NPOV WP:AWW, ("integrity of the game was brached" is opinion, "Many players say it ruins the integrity of the game" (which players?) "arbitrary date of" not exactly an arbitrary date the WSOP has in the past been taped months in advance then aired later after post what different is they the final table play date closer to air date etc.) also see 2008 World Series of Poker where is in mention, if this is reintroduced, make sure citations are used in it's own section or linked to 2008 WSOP and mention there. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 01:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main Event fee

I remember hearing that the fee is only $1. But there seems to be a big discrepency between the total buy in and the total payout (~4 million dollars) Where does that go? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.97.82.49 (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is only 1$ if you can win it through a series of satellites to get to the 10K fee.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 01:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template

I have created {{2009 World Series of Poker}}. I am trying to determine if enough of these articles exist for this to be a useful template. Please comment at Template talk:2009 World Series of Poker#Is this useful.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Series of Poker Hall of Fame

Section required or new wikipage required for the World Series of Poker Hall Of Fame. A new person has been inducted every year since 1979.

http://www.pokerpages.com/pokerinfo/hallofame/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.51.235 (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WSOP television coverage errors

The 1990's part is mixed up with stuff from the year 2000. Also the year 1999 is missing, anybody know if it was broadcasted that year and who did the commentary? Also, the 2000 and 2001 shows give Discovery Channel as broadcaster but who did the commentary those years? --Webjoker (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1975 winning hand for Sailor Roberts - it listed nines but it is jacks

I can not find the source for the 9 9 versus A K but I read somewhere else that it was jacks versus J9 (J9 for Hooks who flopped a flushdraw) and so I edited it. Sources: - http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2245&dat=19750520&id=JjkzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4jIHAAAAIBAJ&pg=2580,1827889 - http://www.pokerjunkie.com/wsop-main-event-final-hands --Webjoker (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the original source for the 1975 WSOP final hand was, good work on finding the correct information, it wasn't listed pokerworks hand history http://pokerworks.com/poker-hands/ , the news clipping you gave looks to be good along with this detailed recount from pokerworks "Final Hand: On the last hand of WSOP 1975, Bob Hooks made a move on the 7h-6c-2-c Flop Holding Jc-9c. He had over-cards, flush-draw and a couple of backdoors, in other words a good spot to push. However, Roberts wasn't going anywhere with his over-pair so the chips went into the middle. The turn was 9s, the river Th, and Brian "Sailor" Roberts became the champion." ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 18:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Making the WSOP Main Event a separate article

While it does make sense to include the main event in the wsop page there is enough information and history to make the wsop main event a separate article. This would also reduce the clutter in the wsop article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.25.24 (talk) 08:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

go for it...---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poker Hall of Fame

Is it honestly necessary to list all of the Poker Hall of Fame members, considering we directly link to the page that lists all said members anyway?--BarryTheUnicorn (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Play of the Year table

Is it necessary to have Points column? It doesn't give much information unless there was a comparison between other players of the same year, due to varying numbers of events and the introduction of a new formula. If anything, it's likely to be more confusing than helpful. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Federation of Poker

Since the article states: "The winner of the World Series of Poker Main Event is considered to be the World Champion of Poker"

(Which is a statement that I would agree with.) it is surely waranted a see also to the largest international body claiming to have held the "official" World Championships of poker see their website [3] and is also repeated by several papers http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903703604576585303620587370.html?mod=googlewsj

The newly formed U.S. Poker Federation will be sending a six-person team to compete in two international poker competitions in London this November, officials announced Wednesday. Events will include the game's first world championship sanctioned by a chartered International Sports Federation

I assume the reversion was done knowing this.Tetron76 (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what a new organization "claims". The IFP has no connection to the WSOP. 2005 (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. If it had a direct connection to WSOP then it would be in the article. This is a conversation about a "see also". Which is information which is relavent to someone reading the page but not directly connected. This has nothing to do with "claims" from the organisation. However, having done a more thorough online search, it would seem that it was premature to add the link to this page as most sources use qualifiersTetron76 (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on World Series of Poker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131209144722/http://www.igamingbusiness.com/article-detail.php?articleID=12961 to http://www.igamingbusiness.com/article-detail.php?articleID=12961

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1994 Losing Hand

The youtube coverage of the final hand of the 1994 WSOP shows a "close-up" of the losing hand including the 8c, but there is also an 8c on the flop. The comments on youtube say this is not because of two 8c in deck, but actually because the losing hand was filmed and edited in during post-production (the relative positions of the cards is also different to how they appear in long shots). Do we have a proper source anywhere for what the losing hand was? If not we should at least change it to 8x5x — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.237.234.163 (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on World Series of Poker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WSOP Online and GGPoker

The World Series of Poker#WSOP online section hasn't been updated in a while, only referring to the 2009 agreement with Harrah's. WSOP has since partnered with GGPoker to create the WSOP Online Series. I've compiled some sources chronologically detailing the partnership between the WSOP and GGPoker if anyone would like to update this section.

WSOP Partnership Sources
Article	Date	Abstract
GGPOKER AND WSOP COLLABORATE ON WSOP SUPER CIRCUIT ONLINE SERIES WSOP.com	April 15, 2020	WSOP and GGPoker collaborate to bring back the WSOP Super Circuit Online Series.
2020 WSOP Online WSOP.com	June 8, 2020	WSOP live events postponed, WSOP Online created as a distinct tournament. WSOP.com hosted north american players from July 1, and GGPoker hosted international players from July 19, after which was a combined live Main Event.
To Play Poker in a Pandemic, Americans Flee the U.S. NY Times	September 1, 2020	GGPoker pays WSOP a licensing fee to host the WSOP Online tournament.
WSOP and GGPoker Extend Partnership With WSOP with Circuit Festivals and Online Bracelet Events Pokerfuse.com	April 21, 2021	WSOP extends partnership with GGPoker to host two WSOP Circuit Ring Series and the 2021 WSOP Online Bracelet Events.
World Series of Poker partners with GGPoker for WSOP Online 2021Las Vegas Chronicle	July 21, 2021	Details of WSOP and GGPoker’s 2021 WSOP Online partnership.
2022 GGPoker WSOP Online to Award 33 Bracelets; Runs August 7-September 27 Pokernews.com	August 5, 2022	Details about the 2022 WSOP Online.
WSOP Online, GGPoker release details for online poker tournament series, new events Yogonet.com	August 21, 2023	WSOP and GGPoker continue partnership for the WSOP Online 2023.