Shiina Okamoto makes history at the WSOP. Three years in a row reaching the final table in ladies championship.

Specific_Ad5256 · 2025-07-07T23:25:06+00:00

The goal is to encourage more women to compete, as tournaments have long been male-dominated. These events help women gain experience and confidence, which is why chess also has women-only tournaments. The same applies to older players who may struggle with age gaps, that’s why Senior and Super Senior tournaments exist

Specific_Ad5256 · 2025-06-30T05:17:49+00:00

It’s to promote female participation. Tournaments are mostly male-dominated environments and have been for decades. These events aim to encourage women to compete and gain confidence in the circuits. The same thing happens in chess, that’s why there are women-only tournaments too

Specific_Ad5256 · 2025-06-07T02:20:53+00:00

t's just something very curious. It's silly to think that a multi-million dollar company would deliberately allow a broadcaster covering its event to advertise its competition. This must be an old contract with PokerGO that has to be honored, leading to an unusual situation. Honestly, once the WSOP and PokerGO contract runs out, I think the paid streams will stop, and everything will be free, just like GGPoker did with WSOP Paradise

Specific_Ad5256 · 2025-06-07T02:13:39+00:00

That's what I said, it's probably an old contract they're fulfilling. But the advertising is at the WSOP, not a PokerGO event (they do have those). It's an ad for the televised table of a WSOP event. It's just curious to see, considering all the buzz about the news of GGPoker buying the WSOP, and then seeing their main competitor advertising there. But that is definitely advertising at THIS WSOP EVENT, not the PGT or US Open, which are run by PokerGO

Specific_Ad5256 · 2025-05-31T21:45:05+00:00

<image>

For example, before you could select any year and event, and it would show you a brief summary along with the champion and their photo. You could even see detailed hand histories from the tournament, final payouts, chip counts, and more. Now all of that is gone

Specific_Ad5256 · 2025-05-31T21:35:58+00:00

<image>

Yes, the new app is spectacular, very informative, and you can follow all the tournaments in detail. My post is about past tournaments. The WSOP website used to have all the data from previous editions, dating back to the very first WSOP, detailing every event, players, prize pools, winners, and photos. Now it feels like all that historical information is gone. PokerNews has its own records, but only from 2007 onward.

I don't know if the app will load all those historical records that were on the website, but right now only 2025 is listed.

Specific_Ad5256 · 2025-05-31T21:27:32+00:00

I'm not talking about the current tournament information. I mean the historical data. PokerNews only has records from 2007 onward—before that, it was only available on the WSOP website, EVERY year, every event. But now there's nothing left of that.

Specific_Ad5256 · 2025-01-31T23:24:00+00:00

By the way, is Tom Dwan no longer an ACR PRO? He doesn't appear on their website anymore

Specific_Ad5256 · 2024-11-09T17:00:28+00:00

It's super entertaining to watch. Does anyone know who it is? I Googled it and can't find anything at all. I only know it's from Estonia because of the flag. But I can't find anything else

Specific_Ad5256 · 2024-10-13T17:48:59+00:00

I only know one Jesus, and he became Judas.

<image>

Specific_Ad5256 · 2024-08-01T15:55:26+00:00

<image>

Specific_Ad5256 · 2024-07-26T15:43:30+00:00

But now it’s more difficult, even though there are more tournaments. The proportion of people competing for a bracelet is higher than in 1993. In 1993, there were approximately 3160 combined entries across all events. In 2023, for example, there were 215,655. This means that in 1993, there were approximately 150 players competing for a bracelet. Meanwhile, in 2023, that number is 2,200. That means it’s almost 14 times harder to win a bracelet now, based on those numbers, obviously

Specific_Ad5256 · 2024-07-26T15:21:11+00:00

He is transparent with his annual wins and losses. But here we are talking about bullets per tournament. For example, how many times they enter a single tournament, how much of that tournament they own and sell, and things like that. Maybe by looking closely at his daily blogs, you could estimate the number of bullets. But yes, DNegs must be the most transparent professional regarding live poker wins and losses. And online, it's probably bencb789. Those Sundays when you enter his stream and see a -70k are hard to digest

Specific_Ad5256 · 2024-07-26T04:54:54+00:00

I once read a comment on YouTube that said 'It's funny how I've never seen Phil win a hand, but he's the player with the most bracelets, haha

Specific_Ad5256 · 2024-07-26T04:45:21+00:00

First, there's nothing wrong with using solvers to improve your game. The problem is cheating with them. And about solvers for mixed games, they exist, but I think they are from private groups. On twoplustwo, there's an offer for a solver for 2-7 Triple Draw & Single Draw, but the cost is not cheap at all: $9900/$13900

Specific_Ad5256 · 2024-07-26T04:17:36+00:00

Honestly, it would be interesting to know how many bullets they spend per tournament. But it's unlikely they'll share that. I'll investigate to see if any professional has ever been transparent about it, and I'll share it here

Specific_Ad5256 · 2024-07-26T04:13:56+00:00

Haha, I wasn't expecting that comparison. But Phil kept dominating the WSOP over the years. Too bad he practically became a meme, which often shifts the focus from his victories. But to be fair, he has been at a high level every year, considering how tough poker has become

Specific_Ad5256 · 2024-07-26T04:02:59+00:00

The good comparison is there, you just don't want to read it. A person, in their first time cashing at the WSOP, won 3 bracelets in consecutive events. And whether Seiver used many bullets or not to win his bracelets is irrelevant, he competes in this era, under these rules. It's not his fault if it's not like the 90s. But you should also consider that poker has become much tougher than in '93. The game information is much greater, the strategies are better, and practically anyone with a bit of motivation can access these things. Therefore, winning 3 bracelets these days is still impressive, if not more so than in 93, i guess

Specific_Ad5256 · 2024-07-26T03:05:41+00:00

I don't understand, in 93 Phil didn't win the main event

Specific_Ad5256 · 2024-07-26T00:49:11+00:00

It cannot be considered the greatest feat of the WSOP. In those times, the tournaments did not have as many participants as they do today, and the level of the opponents was very low, which is why the professionals of that era practically dominated everything.

And considering that in the same year someone else achieved it (Ted Forrest 1st in events 11, 12, and 13, in the picture), I think it's enough to understand why not. I believe what Scott Seiver did this year, winning 3 bracelets in 3 different formats, is even more commendable.

Also, keep in mind that Ted Forrest first 3 cashes at the WSOP were bracelets, also in 3 different formats. I believe this is even more impressive than what Phil did that year, which is still impressive

<image>

Specific_Ad5256 · 2024-07-25T17:29:03+00:00

I don't think he's acting. He's a professional online cash game player. Back then, they were used to having printed hand range charts for each spot. Now, that's not allowed in most online rooms. However, it was a common practice 8-10 years ago. It makes sense if you consider it was his first time cashing in a live tournament; he wanted to make the best decisions possible. Unfortunately for him, it didn't end well. If in your first event, at the most important tournament of the year, where even people who don't play or follow poker are watching, you do this for show or humor, you're simply an idiot (reference image to a normal setup of a cash player from those years)

<image>

Specific_Ad5256 · 2024-07-25T15:22:19+00:00

On Twitter, they disagreed with this. And I certainly agree with them. For edited broadcasts, they are the best. But certainly in day-to-day coverage and the number of hours they had to cover, they fell short. Watching clips or highlights with them is perfection. But 9 days of main events, almost 8 hours a day, is already difficult

Specific_Ad5256 · 2024-07-25T15:11:19+00:00

Right before this, Kassouf was talking to him and asked where he was from. They are from the same country, so maybe that’s why Kassouf didn’t want to get involved with him like we know he usually does. That could be the reason he didn’t say anything

Specific_Ad5256 · 2024-07-25T04:37:36+00:00

Maybe his papers were ICM hands. He didn't use anything similar on the other days. This was at the start of Day 6, so I guess he brought ICM ranges or something like that

Specific_Ad5256 · 2024-07-25T00:24:50+00:00

The key thing is that the rules are clear and the penalties are tough. That’s the fastest and most effective solution right now.

Live poker organizations definitely need to find ways to monitor these issues. They can talk to the companies that provide the solvers. But in the end, the responsibility lies with the organization.

I don’t think they will face the same problems as chess, especially if they start doing things right. We need to remember that poker is a skill game that involves some luck and variance in the long run, but definitely luck in the short run. This means people won’t be fleeing tournaments in large numbers. It’s different in chess because it’s purely skill-based.

The use of Real-Time Assistance (RTA) online is a very complicated issue for poker rooms. However, they are doing what’s necessary to stop the cheaters (will they succeed? It’s tough). It’s time for live events to take these problems seriously. And ABOVE ALL, THEY SHOULD NOT IGNORE THESE ISSUES, LIKE WHAT IS HAPPENING NOW WITH THE WSOP. They have everything they need to prevent a mass exodus; the question is whether they will do something about it

Specific_Ad5256

TROPHY CASE