GULF COAST POKER.NET   

The Premier Website for the Gulf Coast Poker Player  

HOME * BLOGS * TOURNEY SCHEDULE *  CASINOS * LINKS * SPONSORS * ARCHIVES * FORUM *WHO'S WHO

SHANNON SHORR V. SCHLEGER

However, let's review Shannon's case,  the organizers this year used some standards for invitations, past three WSOP winners, multiple bracelet winners this year, and a variety of honors... none that Shannon met.  And though they bill it as a championship of sorts, the others were selected because it's a TV show and NBC wants ratings. 

That's probably Schleger's principal point; Shorr isn't going to get an invite over lesser players that have far more well-known names.  Though I'm not so sure Shorr is saying that. 

NBC having any qualifications standard is a bit of sham, it's like they are trying to sell it as being merit based even though everyone knows it's not.  It's hard to compare it to anything.  In the NCAA basketball tournament maybe those standards are league champions that get auto-bids, and the other invites are teams with +.500 records in a big conference with name recognition.  Shorr until he gets exposure is a mid-major.

However, that falls short because the NCAA still wraps its process in the guise of being completely merit-based.  Gonzaga or a comparable mid-major doesn't win their conference they should get in over say an average Big East team.  This process has none of that.  Perhaps, you could say the name recognition, not the merit based standards, is comparable to auto-bids.  The at larges are determined by the other standards that Shorr didn't measure up.  In one vein, Schleger's completely right.  Phill Hellmuth or Shannon Shorr?  It's going to be Phil Hellmuth.  Case closed, Schleger wins. 

However, a latent argument is the standards for inclusion are arbitrary and not fully reflective of ability is there, and it is what I think Shannon is suggesting.  If it was purely merit based?  Shorr gets in there.  Even if you argue over the metrics it's hard to say he wasn't one of the top 64 players in the U.S. last year.  He did have as good a year is anyone and better than most. 

In that aspect, in our opinion, Shorr is right.  If they are going through the facade of it being merit based he deserves to be in there.  In final player of the year rankings, Shorr finished 19th and 9th in Cardplayer and Bluff for 2008.  In the same neighborhood as the guys he compared himself to that Schleger took him to task for.  This kind of response, even more the comments on Scheleger's blog, shows just how underrated and appreciated Shorr is as a player.

Personally, we differ with Shane's assertion that Shannon shouldn't have said anything.  He at least should have been on the bubble for this event, but due to a lack of TV tables we can surmise he probably wasn't.  Yet, the guys he got passed over for, many of those who garnered their name recognition by being masters of self-promotion, are less deserving.  And Shannon gets taken to task for doing just a little bit of the things that got those guys invites and not him. 

In a response to Wild Bill's comment Shane states "We are all lucky to be making a living playing a game in this unique time in poker/history, so I believe that no one in poker deserves anything."  Yes, we are lucky.  And Poker players probably don't deserve anything (except for a comp or two for filling out poker tables so casinos can give their high rolling guests a poker game).  We should be grateful can manufacture income by playing a game, while others are watching their worlds collapse.  We can appreciate that and imagine Shannon does too. 

However, that does not really apply here.  In this isolated case Shannon is more deserving than other players (if we are to accept NBC's pretense that some of the tournament invitations are based on merit) and he is right to publically state it... specifically for the fact the tournament is engaging in the pretense.  Shane's implication that because the world's falling apart Shannon shouldn't complain about something that is superficially frivolous is a little unfair.  Let's say I got shorted in change at McDonald's today.  Should I not bitch about $5 because our country debt is in the trillions?

We know that if you took the top 64 players based solely on merit, most of them are players like Shannon Shorr, nobody in the mainstream knows.  Of course NBC isn't going to air that.  Still, the real question is, once they parcel out the bids to guys that have to be there; Hellmuth, Brunson and others, is Shannon better than the rest of the at larges?  Maybe not, but maybe so.  He certainly should be in the conversation.  He's certainly not delusional to suggest he was unfairly passed over either.  Even if he isn't in the best of the rest, it's an exclusion only by the slimmest of margins.  And if he doesn't make his case, no one else will.

Oh yeah, if anybody wants to comment on this feel free to blast away on Wild Bill's blog.