Considering I’ve been a recognizable sports fanatic my entire life, the Hall of Fame debate is second nature to me.

In fact, I have spent more time arguing over which players are good and which plaques are hanging in their Hall of Fame than I would like to admit. That’s the great thing about the Hall of Fame debate. It’s definitely a hot topic. And the reason is simple. The Hall of Fame is forever. Once you sign up, you’re done. You and your career achievement remain among all the other greats who came out of your deal for eternity. It’s the ultimate lifetime achievement award. 사설 토토사이트

So I’m humbled and honoured by being asked by Haras and World Series of Poker to be part of a 15-member media panel that picks up the Poker Hall of Fame nomination. This time, my opinion counts for something more than just winning the Baroom debate. This time, it counts. So when I tell you this is an obligation, I take it with great pride and think a lot.

For me, the most important factor in determining Hall of Fame qualifications is longevity. There are a lot of people who can run well over the years, but in this case, you have to do it over a long period of time to be considered one of the greatest people in your sport or game. So I was glad to see WSOP include that players “have to stand the test of time” as part of its standard for Hall of Fame. I was also thrilled that WSOP decided to remove Tom “Dur” Dewan from this year’s original list of 10 nominees for the Hall of Fame class. Dewan is one of the best young players in the game and he could be a valuable choice in the distant future, but he’s not good enough in the most important longevity category at this point in time.

However, even after excluding Dewan, narrowing the list was not an easy task. All Hall of Famer members, including the voters of 15 media and the current 16 living poker Hall of Famer, were asked not to vote for three, two, one, or none of the remaining nine candidates chosen by fans.