There has been a lot of talk in the media this summer about the "Professionals taking back the Series." I know I have written some of those stories, but do we need to ask the question:
"What actually makes a poker player a professional?"
Nolan Dalla and his WSOP media staff have been keeping a running total of bracelet winners this year. Through twenty-nine events their tally stands at: 23 professionals, 4 amateurs and 2 semi-professionals.
Now I personally am more likely to agree than disagree with what some feel is a very liberal definition of "professional" being used in this statistic. But let's explore what might be considered when determining if some is or is not a professional poker player.
Can a person be considered a professional player if they have another job?
How much must a player have won from poker prior to becoming a professional?
Are you a professional after you have won a WSOP or WPT or EPT event?
How many players are amateurs now but would be upgraded to pro if they won an event? And does that make them a pro when they win or only the day after?
I certainly don't have the answers to those questions but I do have a lot of data on both sid. However, let's focus on just a couple of players. For several years we have heard:
"Not since Carlos Mortensen (2001) has a professional won the main event".
.
That means the following players were amateurs when they won the WSOP main event:
Robert Varkonyi-2002
Chris Moneymaker-2003
Greg Raymer-2004
Joe Hachem-2005
Jamie Gold-2006
Jerry Yang-2007
Really? Let's compare. Carlos Mortensen made a final table at the WSOP in 2000 and finished 7th. In the three months prior to his main event win in 2001, he won a preliminary event at LAPC and another at Bay 101. Under Nolan's standards and most everone's criteria, he was a professional.
Greg Raymer finished 12th in a WSOP event the year before this main event victory. He had at least four cashes in excess of $10K and one over $40K. Anyone who hung out on the 2+2 poker forums back then knew and respected the opinions of "The Fossilman", but Greg was considered an amateur when he won. By today's standards he was definitely not. Applying those same standards, Joe Hachem was also a professional in '05.
Notice that we have not even dealt with the issue of "internet pro", which would open the floodgates to literally thousands of newly minted and well trained poker professionals.
I think rather than labeling bracelets winners as professionals or not; we should require amateurs to prove their status, which is difficult to do when you put up $10,000 to play a game of cards. Perhaps amateur is better understood not as a measure of skill or victories but more as an attitude toward the game.
Amateur: A person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession.
_________________________________________
ADDENDUM: Here is a new comparison released by the WSOP media staff. We are going to need to talk with them about their criteria for professionalism; until then, here are their stats on pro vs. amateur over the last several years:
2000 – Pros 14 to Amateurs 8
2001 – Pros 18 to Amateurs 7
2002 – Pros 18 to Amateurs 16
2003 – Pros 24 to Amateurs 12
2004 – Pros 21 to Amateurs 11
2005 – Amateurs 26 to Pros 18
2006 – Amateurs 27 to Pros 17
2007 – Amateurs 34 to Pros 20
2008 - Pros 23 to Amateurs 7 (thru 40 events)
