Ever since 2003, when an all-too-aptly named Chris Moneymaker came from nowhere to win the Main Event of the World Series of Poker and helped to ignite a massive surge of American interest in the game, conversations about subsequent WSOP Main Event final tables have focused not only on who will win, but also (in a perfect world) who should win.
What’s the difference? The former involves an analysis concerned with positional advantages and disadvantages, chip stacks, and tournament prowess, while the latter focuses on the impact a particular winner would have on the poker community, the industry, and the larger state of the game.
The 2009 final table is one of the more diverse (to the extent that term can be applied to your typical poker tournament) in recent memory, with a lineup that spans wide gaps in age, experience, geography and marketability. The odds makers agree that Darvin Moon will win, with live pro Eric Buchman occupying the #2 slot on most lists. That all very well and good, but who should win?
The easy answer: Phil Ivey. 2009 marks the first time an established, big-name pro has been at the final table of the WSOP since … well, Ivey’s appearance at the final table is basically unprecedented. Other pros have been there in the last couple of years, but most were far from household names (Alan Cunningham, Lee Watkinson) and the closest to Ivey’s level (Mike Matusow, Dan Harrington) achieved most of their fame after their WSOP runs. Truth is, modern poker has never seen a marketing opportunity like the one that Ivey winning the WSOP would represent.
That’s because Ivey has an appeal that’s completely unique in the poker world. He’s respected by his fellow pros across the board, confident without being overbearing (the anti-Phil Hellmuth), photogenic and not limited to any one particular demographic. Put simply: Ivey is just really cool. He’d have the full marketing muscle of the world’s second largest online poker room behind him from the word go and an easier time breaking into mainstream media than a Peter Eastgate – especially when you consider the ‘Tiger Woods of Poker’ angle that, lameness aside, will be a popular pitch for writers at countless websites and newsrooms worldwide.
A win from Ivey would also give pro-poker advocates some strong evidence, albeit anecdotal, for the increasingly critical argument that poker is, in fact, a game of skill. When someone considered the world’s best poker player wins what’s considered the world’s most important poker tournament, that matters more to the casual observer (a category many US Congresspeople no doubt fall in) than hardcore enthusiasts might realize.
In short, a win from Ivey would be the nuts for poker. But if he’s the best of the November Nine for poker, what about the rest? Below you’ll find a breakdown of the remaining players (or the Not-Iveys), ranked from bottom to top in the order of who would be Best For Poker.
8. Kevin Schaffel
Schaffel will be flying the PokerStars banner at the final table, which never hurts, but it’s very difficult to see what angle Stars would use with the 51-year-old semi-retired businessman from Florida. He’s too experienced to be pitched as an ‘everyman’, but not experienced enough to be sold as a ‘pro’, and his personal story doesn’t offer any clear and compelling arcs for ESPN or the media at large. What’s worse, Schaffel’s attitude toward promotion seems to be somewhat blasé – when asked by ESPN about his attitude toward the media, he replied “If they want me, they can come to Florida.”
7. Antoine Saout
International main event winners can be great for poker – Peter Eastgate has been a great ambassador for poker, and the breakout successes of Russians such as Alex Kravchenko and Ivan Demidov at the WSOP Main Event are frequently credited with fueling the poker boom in that region. However, Saout is from a market that is already pretty mature, and even if he won the main event, he’d still likely be the second most famous player in the country behind Bertrand “ElkY” Grospellier. France’s market is also in the middle of a serious regulatory transition, and the industry might not be able to maximize a win from Saout as a result.
One argument for Saout is that he’s backed by Everest, and it might be interesting to see what a room not named PokerStars or Full Tilt Poker could do with a main event winner. However, Bodog had Jamie Gold in 2006 and that flopped (not that Gold helped them with his post-WSOP controversies), and there’s no reason to believe that Everest will be able to build bridges to any significant number of new player communities.
6. James Akenhead
Akenhead has one foot in the Saout boat, but has a broader market (the UK) and a stronger room behind him (FTP). That translates into a stronger marketing push that could break into some untapped Euro markets and possibly reinvigorate some existing player bases.
However, like Eastgate, Akenhead seems as if he’d need a bit of time to develop into a marketable personality and his win wouldn’t do much to increase the profile of poker in the global mass market or for the US state and federal governments that have so much of a say in the larger future of poker online.
5. Darvin Moon
It’s tempting to think that Darvin Moon would be a boon for poker. He’s a prototypical rags-to-riches story that makes for good TV and a burst of mainstream media interest. It’s also a narrative that inspires casual players to (re)start their poker hobby, aka the ‘Moneymaker Effect’. So why does Darvin Moon sit in the middle of the Not-Iveys?
Several reasons: First, Moon’s story is compelling, but it’s also hyper-familiar at this point, lessening its ultimate impact on the market. Second, Moon doesn’t have anyone to tell his story – he’s refused sponsorship from any online poker room. While you can certainly applaud Moon’s ethics (he doesn’t play poker online, so he won’t promote a room), it essentially leaves him without the type of strategic media support that’s needed to have any real impact in a seriously saturated landscape.
Finally, even if Moon did hitch his saddle to a corporate horse, there’s nothing to suggest that his story, a novelty at heart, has any staying power or that Moon, who doesn’t seem to enjoy the relatively minor poker media circus, would be interested in becoming an advocate for poker the way that Greg Raymer has. Raymer not only seems at home commenting on poker as a guest on a cable news show, he actively seeks out such opportunities to increase the profile of the game. He seems like a solid guy, but it’s difficult to see Darvin Moon’s name replacing Raymer’s in the sentence above.
4. Joe Cada
Unlike many of his table mates, Cada has a strong personality and should make for interesting TV – assuming he sticks around long enough to get significant coverage. He’s also young and relatively photogenic, qualities that, like it or not, go a long way in determining the amount of exposure the WSOP winner gets. Behind Cada is PokerStars, who should be fully capable of leveraging those qualities to achieve maximum benefit.
Cada’s problem is basically that his dominant storyline – youngest player ever to win the Main Event – is a repeat of Peter Eastgate’s 2008 feat. That might generate some additional coverage of a ‘youth movement’ trend in poker, but it also might discourage some writers due to a lack of uniqueness. Similarly, the market that Cada has the most appeal with – younger poker players – is a pretty saturated one already, so while he might rally a segment of the poker population, he’s unlikely to tap any fresh veins.
Finally, a win from Cada would be problematic for poker advocates in the US, as Cada’s youth (he’s currently 21) and his open admission that he’s been playing online poker for several years would provide annoying ammunition for opponents of regulated poker in the US, a country where the legal age for gambling in most states in 21. From that perspective, you’d almost rather have Schaffel win than Cada; he wouldn’t do much good, but he’d probably be unlikely to do much harm.
3. Eric Buchman
Buchman’s cut from what could be loosely termed the ‘Alan Cunningham Cloth’ – a solid tournament performer who comes across as likeable if not uber-memorable, relatable but also credible – in short, someone who will never be a mainstream name via the force of sheer personality (Doyle Brunson) or character-based hook (Phil Hellmuth) but who could develop into a steady, valuable ambassador for the game within the community and beyond.
Aiding Buchman’s case: he’s reasonably well-spoken and really seems to have an enthusiasm for the game, qualities that it’s hard to develop or fake after the fact. He’s also likely to get (along with Cada) the bulk of PokerStar’s attention and seems like he’d be willing to put in the effort to survive and thrive through the tough year of worldwide tournament grind needed to maximize promotional impact.
Buchman would also be a different type of champion than any in recent memory, and it would be interesting to see what the media made of his ‘average poker pro’ persona. While it might be optimistic speculation, it seems entirely possible that Buchman’s win could prompt a wave of positive coverage of the largely anonymous professional poker middle class that Buchman represents, and that could do a lot to legitimize poker as a profession in the US and beyond.
2. Steven Begleiter
You could certainly make an argument that Begleiter should be sitting a spot below Buchman, but a few critical distinctions separate the two. First is the tantalizing prospect of FTP getting to run a nice ying-yang campaign with Ivey and Begleiter that could cut through the morass of current poker advertising and attract the interest of a new audience. Second, Begleiter is a Bear Sterns alum who lost his job when the firm was shuttered, providing an interesting intersection between the WSOP and the economic reporting that dominates so much of the current front page. That convergence should generate coverage in some outlets that would otherwise pass on the story of the WSOP, or at best run it buried in a back section.
Begleiter also seems a bit more outgoing than Buchman, and his vocal cheering section and unique back story should result in plenty of attention from ESPN. Similar airtime is what boosted Dennis Phillips’ profile in 2008, and there’s no reason to believe Begleiter can’t be Phillips 2.0.
Finally, Begleiter’s background in the financial industry makes him an excellent candidate to make the case for poker as a skill game in the US media, as the stock market is one of the best analogues to poker available and Begleiter is far and away the most qualified of the November Nine to employ the comparison.
1. Jeff Shulman
Shulman sits at an interesting point of intersection in the poker community. He’s a solid player, having been at the final table of the WSOP ME before. He’s the publisher of CardPlayer, the largest poker periodical in the world and therefore the defacto operator of SpadeClub, a subscription based online poker room. He’s also been a vocal critic of how Harrah’s has run the WSOP since acquiring it from Binion’s.
It’s the last bit that has earned Shulman the majority of the attention paid to him so far, and that’s a shame. While he did indicate that he’d throw the bracelet awarded to the ME winner in the trash (a statement he’s since amended publicly), Shulman is, by far, the best bet for poker of all the Not-Iveys. He’s arguably the most media-savvy (look at how much coverage he’s wrung out of hiring Phil Hellmuth as his ‘WSOP coach’), has multiple storylines that will draw the interest of ESPN and other media outlets, and has the experience and level-headedness to keep his story in the forefront without risking overexposure.
Shulman also has the most to gain from a resurgent poker boom and the best perspective on how to promote the game, a powerful pairing that no other November Niner besides Ivey can even come close to matching. While he’s not the most marketable personality on face, he’s best equipped to shift into a persona that talk shows will find palatable, and knows (or really should know) all the right answers to the media’s questions – before they’re asked.
Finally, Shulman’s criticism of Harrah’s might seem problematic for poker, but it’s honestly anything but. Yes, Shulman would use a win as a platform to demand that Harrah’s make changes, but the fact of the matter is that Harrah’s does need to make changes. Shulman might be a bitter pill for Harrah’s to swallow, but they’re much better off taking a few blows from Shulman in this round and learning their lesson than waiting until the next round when their opponent will likely be an alternative tournament series to the WSOP backed by the muscle of the largest poker rooms online – a fissure that would ultimately result in a weakening of poker’s image and popularity, especially in the US.
In many ways, the game of selecting who should win the Main Event of the 2009 World Series of Poker mirrors the game of poker itself. You can diligently weigh all the factors, asses the relative pros and cons until exhaustion and roll all of that into a logically sound decision backed by a tight evidence set, and at the end of it all, you still have no control over the final outcome. Because even if we care deeply who should win, the cards still do not.
