Why the Poker Hall of Fame Vote Shouldn’t Be Seiver vs. Schulman this Summer

Nick Schulman’s recent win in a PokerGO Tour (PGT) high roller brought out the calls for 2025 Poker Hall of Fame induction (as if he hadn’t already done enough).

No doubt the now six-time PGT and World Series of Poker (WSOP) bracelet winner is HOF worthy. He’s crushed it on the felt the past 20 years and in the broadcast booth, mostly on PokerGO, for what seems to be a decade now.

But he might not even get in this year, his first year of eligibility at age 40. That is because another equally deserving legend of the game – Scott Seiver – will also be eligible this summer when the inductee is announced.

And, yes, “inductee” (singular), not “inductees” (plural) is correct. One player or industry personnel gets voted into the Hall of Fame annually, leaving numerous deserving individuals stuck on the sidelines for years or even forever (see: Savage, Matthew).

Poker Hall of Fame Voting Process

The WSOP decided in 2020 to limit induction to one person a year after voting in two annually for most of the previous two decades. Doing so caused some controversy and has led to a never-ending debate within the poker community.

Preserving the exclusivity of the Poker Hall of Fame was the reasoning behind the change, a logical mentality. But doing so seems to have created more unnecessary debate and controversy than actual improvements to the HOF.

In any other sport, voters wouldn’t have to choose between Seiver and Schulman. They’re both deserving of immediate induction. Take Major League Baseball (MLB) as the example the WSOP should copy.

The National Baseball Hall of Fame typically inducts 2-5 players or managers per year. Eligible writers from within the Baseball Writers’ Association of America (BWAA) cast a ballot and can vote for up to 10 players.

Most write in far fewer than 10 players, however, as there are usually only a few worthy of consideration. But the option to vote for more than just one is available and necessary in years when multiple slam dunk first-ballot candidates become eligible, much like the Poker Hall of Fame will deal with this summer.

Those who make it on 75% or more of the ballots earn enshrinement into Cooperstown, the site of baseball’s elitest club. If only one player reaches that threshold in a certain year, then so be it.

Baltimore Orioles “Iron Man” Cal Ripken Jr. and San Diego Padres smooth-hitting Tony Gwynn reached eligibility in 2007. Both were inducted with over 97% of the vote, although a few “journalists” decided to make a mockery of their vote and the Hall of Fame by refusing to include two indisputable first-ballot candidates.

But the voters didn’t have to choose between Gwynn, who passed away in 2014, and Ripken, whose 2,632 consecutive games played streak will likely never be broken. They were each included on every ballot, save for the few questionable voters.

The living members of the Poker Hall of Fame, those chosen to cast a ballot, won’t have that option this summer. They’ll have to determine if Seiver is superior to Schulman, or vice versa, and that just doesn’t seem right.

Scott Seiver vs. Nick Schulman

Seiver, the reigning WSOP Player of the Year, won three bracelets last summer and now has seven overall. He’s racked up $27 million in live tournament cashes, according to The Hendon Mob, and like Schulman, has the respect of his peers as one of the top high-stakes cash game players in the world.

Schulman’s a six-time bracelet winner, has nearly $22 million in live tournament cashes, and is considered one of the best poker commentators. Both players have dominated in the toughest games for about two decades.

So, how do you choose between the two? Better yet, why is a choice even required? And would inducting both in the same year diminish the exclusivity of the Poker Hall of Fame? No, because they’re both almost certainly going to get in eventually anyway.

An Even Bigger Problem

Seiver vs. Schulman isn’t the only matter here. The issues with the voting process run far deeper and will only get worse in the coming years.

There’s already a backlog of players and industry builders with a case for induction, a list that includes but is not limited to Jeremy Ausmus, Mike Matusow, Matt Savage, and Isai Scheinberg. But even if you don’t think those individuals are deserving, there is an endless supply of legends set to turn 40 over the next few years. Tom Dwan, Shaun Deeb, Phil Galfond, Kristen Foxen, and Vanessa Selbst are just a few of the upcoming eligible candidates.

If you think the backlog is long now, just wait until about 2030 when the voters are left to choose between Stephen Chidwick and one of the 10-12 deserving candidates who didn’t get in the prior five years due to the one-person-per-year rule. How do you choose between Chidwick, maybe the best tournament player in the world and, say, Foxen, perhaps the greatest female poker player ever?

This problem would all be solved if the WSOP Poker Hall of Fame followed the baseball model. Or, go back to inducting two per year and perhaps add a separate wing for industry builders like Savage and Scheinberg (the Baseball Hall of Fame does this too, by the way). Just do something, anything, other than limit it to one Hall of Famer per year.

Ausmus made this point even stronger earlier this month when he was officially named PokerGO Tour Player of the Year for 2024 and then proceeded to win the PGT Championship $1 million freeroll for $500,000 the next day. The six-time WSOP bracelet winner, who became eligible for enshrinement five years ago, has arguably as strong of a case as Schulman and Seiver.

Erik Seidel, a Poker Hall of Famer and voter, agrees that one per year isn’t enough. He expressed as much in a post on X.

The concept of ensuring the Poker Hall of Fame is an exclusive club should be commended. It would be silly to just let anyone with a few million bucks in The Hendon Mob cashes or four WSOP bracelets into the HOF. But there are millions of poker players around the world. Letting 100-150 in the Hall of Fame over a 50-year period instead of 50 would do nothing to diminish the club’s exclusivity.

The Members of the Poker Hall of Fame