Last week, Phil Ivey won his eighth World Series of Poker bracelet, moving him past Billy Baxter on the all-time list and into the top five for bracelets earned in a WSOP career despite his age of 33. Every Ivey accomplishment now adds to an obviously historic legacy.
In poker, the number that counts most is money won, which might be the reason there's been relatively little data crunching as far as tournament play goes. With the WSOP's history now including more than 800 tournaments, the age-old refrain of "sample size" in a game in which luck plays a larger short-term role obviously still exists, but maybe not to the extent the detractors of poker-as-skill would have you believe.
We wanted to see just how Ivey stacked up against the greatest bracelet wranglers of all time. So much so that we counted the number of events Phil Hellmuth (11 bracelets), Doyle Brunson (10), Johnny Chan (10), Johnny Moss (9), Erik Seidel (8) and Ivey (8) each could have chosen to enter and the number of players who competed in those events. We used those numbers to figure out just how hard it was for the big bracelet winners to win their gold over the course of their careers and just how exceptional that was in comparison to the average player of the ages in which they played.
In short, we wanted to know whether Ivey was the greatest bracelet winner of all time.
Below, you'll find the results of data compiled on the six players to have reached eight bracelets in their WSOP careers. A few notes to consider when inspecting the data:
• Some tournaments in the WSOP's earlier years didn't have official numbers of entrants published. Final totals for these tournaments were based on total prize pool and number of buy-ins required to meet total prizes. All available data was accounted for in these tabulations. While the number of entrants in an event might be off by one or two as a result, the effect of such deviations would be minimal.
• The "events available for participation" statistic is based on players being of legal age to play and alive during play.
• The numbers do not include WSOP Employees' events, which none of these six players has been eligible for.
• The numbers do not include women's/ladies' events. While men can legally play in those tournaments, the spirit of them dissuades players from doing so.
• Where the players are eligible to play, the Seniors event has been included in the data. This means Brunson and Chan have extra events they could have played.
• This data sampling accounts only for events held in Las Vegas.
• This data accounts for the events these players could have played, not what they chose to play. If they chose not to enter an event, that event is still accounted for below.
• This data includes all tournaments up until the morning of June 29, 2010.
Phil Hellmuth: WSOP eligible in 1986. In Hellmuth's 11 bracelet victories, he's faced a total of 5,373 players and won a total of $3,767,372. He was eligible to participate in a total of 659 WSOP bracelet events, in which 361,093 players competed for WSOP gold.
The breakdown:
• Percent of victorious entrants in available events: 0.1825 percent
• Percent of bracelets won in available events: 1.669 percent
• Number of bracelets won by Hellmuth compared to average player's single bracelet: 9.145
Hellmuth facts:
• He wasn't playing regularly from ages 21 through 24.
• He and Seidel are the only players in this article who have maintained their WSOP dedication throughout their runs.
• He has won more per bracelet than any other player in this study ($343,484.27).
• There were 14 years between his first and eighth bracelet wins.
What does it mean for Ivey?
Bad news for all those Hellmuth haters out there. As bracelets go, Hellmuth was Ivey 10 years earlier. Hellmuth had five wins before reaching 30, including three in 1993. Their records in their 20s are remarkably similar.
What can we extrapolate from that as Ivey goes? It's tough to maintain that competitive level as the times and physiology change. Hellmuth has managed "only" five bracelets in 12 years after earning his first six in an eight-year span.
The good news is that Ivey has shown strength in the first few years of his 30s that we hadn't previously seen outside of Ivey's amazing 2002 campaign. That suggests his next 10 years should be brighter than Hellmuth's, whose example certainly is not the worst (at least, as the data goes).
Doyle Brunson: WSOP eligible in 1970. In Brunson's 10 bracelet victories, he's faced a total of 958 players and won a total of $1,528,070. He won his last bracelet at age 71 in 2005. He was eligible to participate in a total of 812 events, in which 383,285 players competed for WSOP gold.
The breakdown:
• Percent of victorious entrants in available events: 0.2119 percent
• Percent of bracelets won in available events: 1.2320 percent
• Number of bracelets won by Brunson compared to average player's single bracelet: 5.814
Brunson facts:
• His numbers suffer the greatest among those listed here because of lack of dedication.
• He is the only player listed who has been eligible for every WSOP.
• He seldom played and often chopped to lose from 1970 through 1975 out of consideration for what titles might mean to his wife's reputation.
• He seldom played in the '80s, instead choosing to compete in more profitable cash games.
• He boycotted the WSOP in the late '90s as a protest over the change in ownership from Jack Binion to Becky Binion-Behnen.
• There were 22 years between his first and eighth bracelets.
What does it mean for Ivey?
Ivey and Brunson are similar in that they both have chosen at times to forego bracelet events for lucrative cash games. Ivey's accomplishments now might be a good indicator of how Brunson might have fared if the players of his time were making bracelet bets and offered the incentive of fame to compete.
Johnny Chan: WSOP eligible in 1978. In Chan's 10 bracelet victories, he's faced a total of 1,741 players and earned a total of $2,694,775. He was eligible to participate in 758 bracelet events, which featured 378,702 players.
The breakdown:
• Percent of victorious entrants in available events: 0.2002 percent
• Percent of bracelets won in available events: 1.3190 percent
• Number of bracelets won by Chan compared to average player's single bracelet: 6.588
Chan facts:
• He started playing at the WSOP at age 27.
• Eighteen years passed between his first and eighth bracelet victories.
After Chan's being called overrated for the past few years, I'm beginning to wonder whether he's actually underrated at this point. Chan managed to change with the game, winning five of his bracelets in the past decade despite seeing the number of events he entered drop off. He seldom competes in the U.S. now, and the lack of a big-name online affiliation seems to have rendered him relatively forgotten considering the company he keeps in poker history.
What does it mean for Ivey?
Probably not a lot. Chan's success began at a later age, and Ivey's prop bets assure he'll be more interested in continuing to play, where Chan's participation has dropped off. Ivey also has spoken about understanding the importance of his place in history. It's a consideration in which Chan seems disinterested.
Johnny Moss: WSOP eligible in 1970 and died in 1995. In Moss' nine WSOP bracelet victories, he faced a total of 377 players and earned $447,900. He was eligible to participate in 300 WSOP events, which featured 35,831 players.
The breakdown:
• Percent of victorious entrants in available events: 0.8373 percent
• Percent of bracelets won in available events: 3 percent
• Number of bracelets won by Moss compared to average player's single bracelet: 3.583
Moss facts:
• He was the only player on this list to have experienced the decline of age. He died at 88, and his percentage data includes the seven years after his final bracelet win.
• Bracelets were awarded only from 1976 onward. The winners of events predating this point were recognized posthumously as bracelet winners.
• While winning 3 percent of all available bracelets is monumental, that number is tempered somewhat by the 3.583 number of bracelets won compared to the average player's single bracelet. There just weren't that many people competing during his reign.
• There were 11 years between his first and eighth bracelet victories.
What does it mean for Ivey?
While Ivey is concerned for his place in poker history, he'll never be able to surpass Moss for the speed with which the grand old man attained his jewelry. Moss was a dominant figure in the WSOP's first decade despite his advanced age, and it's scary to think about what he might have done with more time.
Erik Seidel: WSOP eligible in 1980. In Seidel's eight bracelet victories, he faced a total of 2,373 players and earned $2,475,030. He was eligible to participate in 734 events, which featured 368,111 players.
The breakdown:
• Percent of victorious entrants in available events: 0.1994 percent
• Percent of bracelets won in available events: 1.0900 percent
• Number of bracelets won by Seidel compared to average player's single bracelet: 5.466
Seidel facts:
• He was another player with a brilliant run in his 20s.
• Along with Allen Cunningham, he was the only other player to have won bracelets in three straight years after the 1970s.
• There were 15 years between his first and eighth bracelet victories.
What does it mean for Ivey?
Seidel's example gives Ivey's success remarkable context. Here we have one of the great players of all time (and perhaps the odds-on favorite for Hall of Fame induction this year), who is still relatively young and has been competing in the WSOP for almost a quarter of a century and Ivey outdoes him in every way. Ivey has attained his eight bracelets in fewer years, in fewer events and at a much faster pace than Seidel.
Phil Ivey: WSOP eligible in 1997. In Ivey's eight WSOP bracelet victories, he's faced a total of 1,757 players and earned $1,835,328. He was eligible to participate in 478 events, which featured 329,681 players.
The breakdown:
• Percent of victorious entrants in available events: 0.1451 percent
• Percent of bracelets won in available events: 1.6667 percent
• Number of bracelets won by Ivey compared to average player's single bracelet: 11.497
Ivey facts:
• He played relatively few events from 2004 through '07, opting for more lucrative cash games.
• Hellmuth and Ivey were the same age when they won their respective fifth and sixth bracelets. In every other case, Ivey was younger than the other players on this list with every respective bracelet he's won.
• Despite generally larger fields, Ivey has won less with his average bracelet win than Hellmuth, Chan or Seidel, suggesting he might be practicing some bracelet-based game selection and looking to play in smaller events more regularly than large ones.
• There were 10 years between his first and eighth bracelet victories.
What does it mean for Ivey?
Looking at the number of bracelets Ivey has won compared to the average player, we're swimming in uncharted waters here. He's winning at better than twice the rate Seidel has despite his interest waning at times where Seidel's hasn't. As WSOP bracelets go, this is an unprecedented case study. Maybe the comparisons to Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods aren't so outlandish after all.
So, is Ivey the greatest of all time? It's a tough distinction to make, because it requires some projection. If things play out as they have to this point and Ivey eventually surpasses Hellmuth, there's no question he'll top all lists as bracelet-based accomplishments go. Until he does, though, the debate will be about how much weight Hellmuth's three extra bracelets carry in a discussion like this one.
One thing we understand now, however, is that Ivey is winning at a more remarkable rate than any other player in WSOP history. Winning bracelets more than 11 times as often in comparison to the average WSOP player of his era is an unmatched statistic. The world will be watching to see whether he can maintain that pace or at least stay ahead of Hellmuth's. If he does, we'll know he's the best bracelet competitor of all time. Should he never win another bracelet, his present run will always keep him part of the conversation.
Gary Wise is a poker columnist for ESPN.com.