Talk:World Series of Poker

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Linking players names 

message: 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)
thread_title: Spoiler warning

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Flag changes

message: 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)
thread_title:  1970 Number of Entrants 

message: 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)
thread_title:  T♦? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I just read this article titled "No bluffing. World Series of Poker started in Reno" 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)
thread_title:  First WSOP? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Kudos to you! nice detective work! Addington:  Moss:  flop  turn  river  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)
thread_title:  1971/72 WSOP? 

message: 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)
replies: text: so did I... thus WSOP braceletBalloonman 17:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Bracelets 

message: > 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Most Prestigious? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Delay of the Final Table 

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

message: I have created .  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)
thread_title:  Template 

message: 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)
thread_title:  World Series of Poker Hall of Fame 

message: 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)
thread_title:  WSOP television coverage errors 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  1975 winning hand for Sailor Roberts - it listed nines but it is jacks 

message: 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)
replies: text: go for it...---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making the WSOP Main Event a separate article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Poker Hall of Fame 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Play of the Year table 

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[International Federation of Poker]]

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on World Series of Poker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  1994 Losing Hand 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930055513/http://www.igamingbusiness.com/article-detail.php?articleID=12961 to http://www.igamingbusiness.com/article-detail.php?articleID=12961
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930055513/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 or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Chris H (GGPoker) (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  WSOP Online and GGPoker  

message: The redirect 2012 World Series of Poker Online Main Event has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Acebulf (talk | contribs)  04:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:2012 World Series of Poker Online Main Event]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect 2012 World Series of Poker Online has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 23:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:2012 World Series of Poker Online]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]