What Do Bracelets Mean These Days Anyway?

[rog 0]

When I look at the schedule and see 6 $1500 buy-in NLHE events on the WSOP schedule, it makes me wonder why anyone cares about bracelet winners anymore. There's so many chances to win a bracelet in NLHE, and tons of them at the same buyin level. What's so special about winning a 1500 dollar freezeout at the WSOP versus taking down the Sunday Million, or one of the big buy-in circuit events?

[David_Nicoson 1]

When I look at the schedule and see 6 $1500 buy-in NLHE events on the WSOP schedule, it makes me wonder why anyone cares about bracelet winners anymore. There's so many chances to win a bracelet in NLHE, and tons of them at the same buyin level. What's so special about winning a 1500 dollar freezeout at the WSOP versus taking down the Sunday Million, or one of the big buy-in circuit events?

Yeah, I came to the same conclusion myself. It's marketing.

[daniel mahan 0]

When I look at the schedule and see 6 $1500 buy-in NLHE events on the WSOP schedule, it makes me wonder why anyone cares about bracelet winners anymore. There's so many chances to win a bracelet in NLHE, and tons of them at the same buyin level. What's so special about winning a 1500 dollar freezeout at the WSOP versus taking down the Sunday Million, or one of the big buy-in circuit events?

hmmm 50 ppl a year get a bracelet. And considering how many ppl play poker.... i'd say its pretty special. Plus no TV time for the sundays.... Duhhhhhh!!!

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

They're important because many people think they're important.The WSOP is different because of the prestige, but also because of the competition at the event. In theory, to win you need to beat the best in an event that is mentally and physically grueling - often competing in multiple such events in a short period of time. It isn't "just" the $ won. Frankly I couldn't name you a single "Sunday Millions" winner. But I know that Phil won his 11th and DN is still after his 4th and that some guy named Moneymaker won the ME a few years ago......and so on......people, even non-pros, actually know about the WSOP.

[koolromeo 0]

there's like 3000 people in the $1500 events. winning one would be the highlight of most player's careers.

[nutzbuster 7]

Try winning one.No, wait.....Try winning 11.

[theresa113 0]

I actually think they have become more prestigious because there are so many players. It's not like the good old days where you know everyone in the tournament and have played with them many, many times. You have a wide variety of play and styles. It's a minefield. It may seem more common because of all of the events and the exposure but I personally think a bracelet is a big deal.

[Jambot 0]

If a pro wins a bracelet now it seems to be seen as even more impressive, because of the huge fields. I'm not sure the opposite is true too - if an amateur gets one instead of a pro it's because of the crazy big fields - but I think a fair few people hold that opinion. So if you are a known name I'm pretty sure that a bracelet or two means a fair bit. If not, I'm thinking the huge payouts mean a lot more. A bracelet isn't going to be life changing for most (with the exception of the ME perhaps) but a $500,000 pay day is probably gonna open up a few new possibilities for them.I know if I won one I'd be happier about the cash than being able to say I'm a bracelet winner, but perhaps that's because I know I'm not really at a poker playing standard where I feel I deserve a bracelet.

[Lil_Hellmuth 0]

If you are writing to question whether a bracelet is a big deal, then it is a big deal. Of course there are a lot of events around that anyone would be more than happy to win, but a world series bracelet has some sort of stigma behind it. If they have lost their clout I dont think anyone would of been hog wild about Hellmuth winning 11 or writing numerous articles about Madsen's performance at last years series. My personal opinion is that a WSOP bracelet is the ultimate. I mean I was walking on air after winning a 124 person B&M 115 dollar buy-in tournament. I could not even imagine what it would be like to win a bracelet.

[rog 0]

If they have lost their clout I dont think anyone would of been hog wild about Hellmuth winning 11 or writing numerous articles about Madsen's performance at last years series.

It's always a big deal winning a tourney in a large field, and I don't mean to down-play what Phil has done... he's a great player, but I think the prestige comes mainly from history. Again looking only at the 1500 NLHE freezeout events, what does it mean to win it? NLHE champion? Nope. 1500 dollar buyin NLHE champion? Nope again. Beat the top players in the game? Well...some of them,but with 2 multi-day events starting per day, the top talent are spread around a bit. It means you were able to win one of a half-dozen medium buy-in events against a donk-tacular field. Impressive...sure, but I have more regard for the winner of the Aussie Millions or the Binions big buy-in event.And don't bother with the "you go win one then" reponses. I'm a micro-stakes donk. I just dont understand why we hold these bracelets in such high regard, when there are so many better tournaments each year than the WSOP NLHE 1500 freezeouts.

[ajs510 122]

I actually think they have become more prestigious because there are so many players. It's not like the good old days where you know everyone in the tournament and have played with them many, many times. You have a wide variety of play and styles. It's a minefield. It may seem more common because of all of the events and the exposure but I personally think a bracelet is a big deal.

You're 100% right, they're more prestigious now than they were back in the day. I remember reading a Todd Brunson article in which he said he was wandering through Binion's one day back in the early to mid-90's, and some guy was wandering around trying to drum up some players for the $2500 HORSE event...because only twelve people had entered. The guy was pitching is as "an opportunity to win a World Series Bracelet!!!" and he passed on the opportunity because there were far juicier cash games going on and in his words "what did I need a stupid bracelet for anyway?"People saying that the older bracelets have more value and prestige are just foolish. There are far greater numbers of talented players participating in WSOP events these days than there ever were before, and far more landmines to trip over on the way to the Final Table. I won't say the modern bracelet winners should receive more accolades than the guys who won bracelets 10-30 years ago, but they certainly don't deserve any less. There's no tarnish on the new bracelets.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

You're 100% right, they're more prestigious now than they were back in the day. I remember reading a Todd Brunson article in which he said he was wandering through Binion's one day back in the early to mid-90's, and some guy was wandering around trying to drum up some players for the $2500 HORSE event...because only twelve people had entered. The guy was pitching is as "an opportunity to win a World Series Bracelet!!!" and he passed on the opportunity because there were far juicier cash games going on and in his words "what did I need a stupid bracelet for anyway?"People saying that the older bracelets have more value and prestige are just foolish. There are far more talented players participating in WSOP events these days than there ever were before, and far more landmines to trip over on the way to the Final Table. I won't say the modern bracelet winners should receive more accolades than the guys who won bracelets 10-30 years ago, but they certainly don't deserve any less. There's no tarnish on the new bracelets.

Ding!...winner!

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

...the winner of the Aussie Millions or the Binions big buy-in event...

Possibly for the ME winner of each of those events vs. a $1,500 NL WSOP winner, however, the fact remains that if RIGHT NOW you went to any poker room (B&M or On Line) picked a table at random and asked who won an Aussie Millions, Sunday Millions, or Binions event, you wouldn't get a SINGLE correct response......half could tell you that Phill just won #11......all would recognize Moneymaker......I'd even bet that you couldn't name the last two winners of the Binions (without looking it up).

[da_beartrap 0]

my take on this, is.... to win a bracelet is important. as with any profession/sport[sports in particular]. you want to be known as the best, to be the most successful player. poker in itself is a profession but the world series, to me is the sport. you compete every day for 2 months to win bracelets. the money helps but at the end of the series you want to be player of the year, or win 2 bracelets or the main event or the horse event. you compete for the challenge of the sport. obviously in poker the most successful players have/should have the most money. but this isnt for the entire year, this is just a 2 month period where thousands and thousands of players descend upon the vegas to win events. if you can win one of these events with 1500-3000 players that is an impressive feat. you become a part of the history of the sport, of the world series of poker. not just some online tourney or some home game tourney but of a rich history, you name can always mentioned next to dn, or brunson, or helmuth or chan or stu ungar because you are a bracelet winner yes there are 50 events and 50 people that can say that, but how many thousands of players will never get that chance? the main event is going to attract say 8000 people, if all 50 bracelet winners play that means only 0.6 percent of that field are bracelet winners, to me that make it an elite club.

[rog 0]

Possibly for the ME winner of each of those events vs. a $1,500 NL WSOP winner, however, the fact remains that if RIGHT NOW you went to any poker room (B&M or On Line) picked a table at random and asked who won an Aussie Millions, Sunday Millions, or Binions event, you wouldn't get a SINGLE correct response......half could tell you that Phill just won #11......all would recognize Moneymaker......I'd even bet that you couldn't name the last two winners of the Binions (without looking it up).

Well, that's sort of my whole point. We revere these bracelet winners even though with the exception of what we now call "championship events", the WSOP is just a bunch of mid-buyin tourneys. In the meantime, guys like Lindgren (who won the Aussie millions) somehow gets less respect because he hasn't won a bracelet.BTW, I also couldn't name one winner of an NLHE bracelet event under a 2k buyin from 2006. People remember the main event, and "bulk stats" like how many bracelets Phil has. Years from now, nobody will remember what event was Phil's 11th bracelet.

[Teffy 0]

When I look at the schedule and see 6 $1500 buy-in NLHE events on the WSOP schedule, it makes me wonder why anyone cares about bracelet winners anymore. There's so many chances to win a bracelet in NLHE, and tons of them at the same buyin level. What's so special about winning a 1500 dollar freezeout at the WSOP versus taking down the Sunday Million, or one of the big buy-in circuit events?

Yes there areore bracelets to win, but they are exponentially harder to win with a. a MUCH larger number of PROFESSIONAL poker players than in the past, b. a MUCH larger field in every single event - meaning longer days, little rest for the body and mind. I believe a bracelet is MORE prestegious now than in the past, especially anyone who can win more than one in this present form.

[Teffy 0]

Well, that's sort of my whole point. We revere these bracelet winners even though with the exception of what we now call "championship events", the WSOP is just a bunch of mid-buyin tourneys. In the meantime, guys like Lindgren (who won the Aussie millions) somehow gets less respect because he hasn't won a bracelet.BTW, I also couldn't name one winner of an NLHE bracelet event under a 2k buyin from 2006. People remember the main event, and "bulk stats" like how many bracelets Phil has. Years from now, nobody will remember what event was Phil's 11th bracelet.

Hellmuth's 10th bracelt, no?and I think one of Madsen's last year too?

[ajs510 122]

Hellmuth's 10th bracelt, no?and I think one of Madsen's last year too?

Hellmuth, Jeff Madsen, Mark Vos, Allen Cunningham, Brandon Cantu and Rafe Furst all won sub $2k HE bracelets last year, although to be fair Cunningham's and Hellmuth's both were won in a rebuy event.

[Orion071 0]

I don't think that any individual bracelet has a lot of prestige, unless it's the ME or the $50K HORSE event. Lots of people have 1 bracelet now, and there's a good number of people with 2. Once you get to 3 bracelets, people will know your name. Any more than that, and you're considered one of the top players in the game. So while any one bracelet doesn't carry that much weight, a collection of them does.

[gmanshade 0]

IMO what bracelets these days mean is that poker is going to cool down as a fad....the reason it took off in the early millenium is that you had a select number of players with a big game and big personality (hellmuth, daniel, freddy deeb, farha, scotty nguyen, etc) that had the bracelets as their street cred and that made many tv FTs. now you have a lot of people that could not play professionally--and that, in many cases, are not interesting to watch/hear about--winning bracelets. If I were on the WSOP board I would legislate for between 10-15 events each year in addition to the ME. Each of these events should be $5k-10k buyin and should have an extremely extremely slow structure. then a bracelet would mean a lot. as it is, the people in charge have the mindset--lets cash in on this as much as possible while the interest level is this high. lets have a million events, lets get as much advertising revenue as possible, lets charge for rights to report on the events, lets charge PPV, lets take a rake. lets...anyone else have any ideas how to squeeze an extra buck?this happens with so many companies it is ridiculous. short-term gains at the expense of long term value. any way, in summary go hellmuthhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[gmanshade 0]

I don't think that any individual bracelet has a lot of prestige, unless it's the ME or the $50K HORSE event. Lots of people have 1 bracelet now, and there's a good number of people with 2. Once you get to 3 bracelets, people will know your name. Any more than that, and you're considered one of the top players in the game. So while any one bracelet doesn't carry that much weight, a collection of them does.

not necessarily. raymer and hachem are good.buti wouldn't bankroll moneymaker or jamie gold to play 5-10 NL. I don't think either of them would be a winning player in that game. bracelets draw attention to a players game, but it doesn't validate them as a good player. i mean is danny nguyen a good player b/c he has a WPT title?

[psujohn 0]

A bracelet is prestigious and rightly so. Still I'd advocate a system that reduced the number of bracelets given and restricted them to the "championship" events. They could give some other non-bracelet to the other event winners (like the circuit rings). You'd have bracelets for the ME and 50K HORSE, as well as things like PLHE, TD, etc. I personally don't think the rebuy events should be bracelet events but whatever.

[thebottomline 0]

I don't think that any individual bracelet has a lot of prestige, unless it's the ME or the $50K HORSE event. Lots of people have 1 bracelet now, and there's a good number of people with 2. Once you get to 3 bracelets, people will know your name. Any more than that, and you're considered one of the top players in the game. So while any one bracelet doesn't carry that much weight, a collection of them does.

I disagree with the 50k HORSE event, I don't see how thats lost it's prestige, when it's only been around for ONE YEAR, with a very respectable and respected winner in Chip Reese, seen as one of the best all round poker players in the world. Also, you don't get every website offering 10+ seats to the 50k event, and not every random player will want to play such a mixed game with such a high buy in. ME possibly, but it's still very presitgious, 50k HORSE definitely not.

[rog 0]

A bracelet is prestigious and rightly so. Still I'd advocate a system that reduced the number of bracelets given and restricted them to the "championship" events. They could give some other non-bracelet to the other event winners (like the circuit rings). You'd have bracelets for the ME and 50K HORSE, as well as things like PLHE, TD, etc. I personally don't think the rebuy events should be bracelet events but whatever.

I agree 100% with everything you said. One bracelet per "game" given to the winner of the biggest buy-in event for that game. Keep the 45 or so events to maintain the scale of the WSOP on the whole. Winning ANY big tourney is prestigious, but why not save the highest accolades for championship winners?

[thebottomline 0]

That would result in hyper-inflated entries in the "big" events for each type of poker, and seriously dwindled down entries in others, I believe.On the same point, there is some distinction between each one anyway, if you look on the WSOP website, in the schedule, the lower buy in events (i.e. the $2.5k 7cs) are just called "$2,500 Seven-card stud" whereas the higher entry events (the $5k stud, for example) is labelled "The Seven Card Stud World Championship". So while it may only be in name, there is some distinction between the smaller and bigger ones. I think I've drifted from my point.. but whatever.