complaints about australian WSOP bracelets

trigstrigs
in WSOP / WPT / EPT Discussion
so ivey won bracelet #9 in event #3 in the australian WSOP going on right now. however, there's been a few people who have argued that these bracelets shouldn't count (in the overall WSOP bracelet race) because the field was small (81 entries) and the 1st place prize money was small ($51K i think).

anyone else feel this way? i guess i understand that stretching the WSOP across the globe could work to lower the prestige of winning a bracelet (that is, if they start giving out tons of bracelets a year they won't seem as great). however, the argument that field was too small and the prize money was too low doesn't really make sense to me. before the poker boom (from the 70's up to 2003), many events had similar numbers. are we going to stop including hellmuth's older rings because the fields were smaller then as well?

Comments

  • jontmjontm
    Back then not as many people knew the game either. It's a bit biased to give a player more credit just because of brand. At work, but will be more long winded later

    I've never been a fan of crediting the small ones except that they are the grassroots. This just seems like a way to isolate.

    Why wasn't South Africa a bracelet?
  • Wetts1012Wetts1012
    Most of Moss, Unger and Doyle won their titles with field sizes less than that, so unless you negate those, I count it.
  • jontmjontm
    They all count, perhaps a better question being posed is does a bracelet in general have the prestige it used to?

    Some feel that not having a "standard" is watering down the "value"
  • jontmjontm
    Put another way, and the way I see it, we should recognize Wetts, Greg and anyone else that wins a medium limit tourney as a bracelet winner then. Should every PGA event award a green jacket? They are all 18 holes right?

    Is winning the Grey Cup same as SuperBowl?
  • blackmagiczblackmagicz
    Game selection ftw for ivey....
  • MiloMilo
    Jon . . . the "Bracelet" is a WSOP trademark in terms of prizing. Circuit event winners get a "Ring", as Koby did. My personal opinion is that people automatically discount all but the "biggest" bracelets, anyway. Hell, you'd probably get an argument from some that the $50k HORSE event Bracelet is a better indicator of a skilled player.

    As Wetts said, if Moss's count, then so does Ivey's latest.
  • jontmjontm
    Milo wrote: »
    Jon . . . the "Bracelet" is a WSOP trademark in terms of prizing. Circuit event winners get a "Ring", as Koby did. My personal opinion is that people automatically discount all but the "biggest" bracelets, anyway. Hell, you'd probably get an argument from some that the $50k HORSE event Bracelet is a better indicator of a skilled player.

    As Wetts said, if Moss's count, then so does Ivey's latest.

    Well put. I agree. I just think the easier they make it the more "meh" it becomes. FWIW I feel the same way about some highroller events. I'm impressed by profits but wish guys destroying a 1k with a bazillion players would get same recognition.

    I realize how the rings and bracelets work but bar entry and field size I think the only real difference usually is how much the casino pays to use the trademark.

    I think GPI is going to be standard for me as it really eliminates the trademark factor. A few years ago, the all time money list was exciting and headline material, till Ivey went on vacation and the highroller events skewed it.

    Brb
  • MiloMilo
    Same thing happened with "all-time" $$$ lists in golf, when Tiger hit the tour, a lot of prize money flooded in and it was not too long before some pretty mediocre names were passing the legends of the game.

    Hell, Esfandiari is the all-time leading money winner by virtue of winning a gimmick event, and before that Jamie Gold did it by winning the WSOPME. I like your idea about the GPI being a truer reflection of who might be the top dog at any given moment.
  • mikelbylmikelbyl
    I do like the changes Hendon Mob has made, allowing you to easily generate a money list that excludes invitational events (only open events are counted) and/or excludes high roller events.

    Bracelets are awesome and all but I think it's pretty universal that the real way to keep score is by tournament cash winnings. The improved lists help with this.

    I really like the GPI but I think it has more to do with current performance that "keeping score" over a player's career.
Sign In or Register to comment.
HomeDiscussionsToggle Dark Mode