Poker Coverage: Poker Tournaments Casino News Sports Betting Poker Strategy

Phil Ivey Wins Ninth World Series Of Poker Bracelet

Professional Gambler Now Tied For Fourth All-Time

Print-icon
 

Phil Ivey capitalized on the World Series of Poker running bracelet events in Australia.

On Wednesday, the professional gambler won his ninth WSOP title, putting him in a tie for fourth all-time. Only Johnny Chan (10), Doyle Brunson (10) and Phil Hellmuth (13) have more. The late Johnny Moss also accumulated nine during his lifetime.

The $2,200 mixed-game event drew 81 players and awarded Ivey $51,840 and 192 POY points.

Ivey’s win comes after he made five final tables at the WSOP last summer but failed to win any of them. Ivey told the WSOP that he had the close calls in the back of his mind.

“As I’ve gotten older, I’ve started to think about my place in poker history and where I’m going to stand, so it’s important to me to win these bracelets,” he told the WSOP. “I’m trying to catch Phil [Hellmuth]. It’s tough; he keeps winning them.”

The win was also Ivey’s first at the WSOP since he decided to forgo the 2011 summer Series in the wake of Black Friday. He said then that he was unhappy that players hadn’t been repaid by Full Tilt, the site he once endorsed all over the world. He now reps a new product.

In addition to his tournament successes, Ivey is one of the most profitable cash game players ever, though his 2013 online campaign hasn’t been so great. According to HighstakesDB, he’s down more than $1.6 million on Full Tilt this year.

With the ninth bracelet in the bag, Ivey is poised to have a shot at double digits this summer. He said he’s “looking forward” to the upcoming festival held annually in Las Vegas.

Place Player Earnings POY Points
1 Phil Ivey $51,840 192
2 Brandon Wong $32,039 160
3 Graeme Putt $22,427 128
4 Daniel Negreanu $16,336 96
5 Robert Campbell $12,020 80
6 Kevin Song $8,978 64

Image courtesy of the WSOP.

 
 
Tags: Phil Ivey,   WSOP,   Bracelet
 
 

Comments

Curtis3
over 8 years ago

I think it is absurd that this counts as a bracelet event, 81 players? More and more the whole concept of the gold bracelet is being watered down to something meaningless. This one is an utter joke, IMO

 
Reply
 

voelker
over 8 years ago

Huh? What are you guys smoking? Watered down?

According to the logic you two are using, every bracelet won before about 2000 should be thrown out because its "meaningless." Phil Hellmuth, Brunson, Chan, Ungar... None of their main event bracelets should mean anything. LOL. Hell, if a WSOP event with less than 500 entrants shouldn't be awarded a bracelet, then Doyle Brunson and Johhny Chan should have to give back EVERY bracelet they have ever won. It was all fixed so they could get easy bracelets...

 
Reply
 

LisaJax
over 8 years ago

Isn't it kind of gay for grown men to be this fixated on gold bracelets? It should only be about the money, baby! $ $ $ $ $

 
Reply
 

JZNYC714
over 8 years ago

voelker is right. Before 1999 There were never more than 400 players. Moneymaker's year, 2003, there were 829 in the Main Event, by far the highest ever at that point. IMHO fields of thousands make the bracelet less meaningful, not more. Jamie Gold won the biggest Main Event ever. Jerry Yang won the very next year. With due respect to these Champs they're not even playing the same game Phil Ivey plays...

 
Reply
 

ginjuice
over 8 years ago

WSOP has become nothing more than a marketing tool, throw the WSOP logo and brand on something and suddenly it's supposed to mean something for Poker history? Only a handful of events really mean much to determine the great poker players, I don't buy into the WSOP marketing branding b.s..

 
Reply
 

AcesAndFaces
over 8 years ago

WSOP has held events at the Palm Beach Kennell Club the past few years. I know they had over 2,500 players in the $560, $1 Million GTD this year. Before the WSOP came to town, you'd only see about 100 or 200 players at events. I'm all for the marketing!!!

The winner of that event got a ring because it was only a circuit event. If you cared about bracelets, it would be disappointing to only get a ring for that accomplishment. But I'm with Lisa, its all about the cash!

 
Reply
 

Curtis3
over 8 years ago

It's less about the number of entrants than it is the number of events that qualify as bracelet event, although the event size, IMO matters here as well. Looking back into history at the small field sizes without factoring in the size of the poker playing community at the time is apples and oranges anyway.

 
Reply
 

Allen5
over 8 years ago

what is wrong with you morons thinking this is not a big accomplishment due to entrants? look at the caliber player you have to beat to win! the majority of these fields of 80something are ridiculously swamped with GREAT talent! id bet the house if you jumped in this "meaningless" tourney with the same players ivey just got through you would probably be lucky to win one time out of 1000 tries. and NOT ABOUT WSOP MARKETING?? MORON?! HELLO?! if it weren't for the WSOP we would've never had the poker boom that set the game up for the super run it has taken in the country this far! get a grip on REALITY people!

 
Reply
 

clunker
over 8 years ago

In 1993 there was 21 bracelet events at the WSOP. In 2013 just in Vegas alone there will be 60+ this does not count another 60+ world wide. The field sizes do not matter any where near as much as the huge increase in the # of bracelet events. This increase in events while making the WSOP brand tons of money in reality greatly cheapens the winning of a bracelet.

 
Reply
 

DommyC
over 8 years ago

YOU MORONS!!! Not an accomplishment? this wasnt No Limit hold em. it was a mized game event. When You two idiots at the top and learn to beat any type of game let us know. especailly a $2,000 mixed game where i bet a number of the greatest poker players played in! You idiots think beating a field of 1,000's of people (mostly amateurs) is the real accomplishments? Exactly why you must be an amateur! typical idiots who cant beat a sit n go are talking crap about ivey? this is pointless!

 
Reply
 

kevko_2000
over 8 years ago

Isn't the larger the field the more that luck factors in to win? So how does that make it any more of an accomplishment. It just means that you got luckier.
As Domm pointed out, it was a 2k mixed event which was stacked to the gills with talent. I'd like to see some of the complainers even cash in an event like that.

 
Reply
 

DommyC
over 8 years ago

Ivey didn't take anyones money IMO. He def borrowed millions from the site himself but I doubt he knew the financial troubles they were in. with Full Tilt majority owners such as (Howard, Chris, Raf, and Ray) lending him the money with knowledge of financial downfall is there fault. Ask yourself, if your boss was lending you money that you could eventually pay back wouldnt you take it if you needed? If the company went down in the next few months and didnt pay other employees would it be your fault that the employees/vendors didnt get paid? NO not at all! You borrowed the money thinking your company was financially stable to lead you the money and pay the other employees. You people really need to think on this. Its the actual owners fault we/you havent been payed out.

 
Reply
 

clunker
over 8 years ago

Must be nice living in make believe land. Ivey who is supposedly the most successful poker player in history with 20 Mil in winnings just on line never mind live saw a way to play for free with other peoples money. he saw an edge and he took it. The loans he took were never going to be paid back. That's reality. If he was honest he would repay the millions he borrowed to the players he borrowed from or donate it to a worthy charity. But honesty is not something most poker players in the upper tier of the poker world have.

 
Reply
 

LisaJax
over 8 years ago

That begs the question: Why would multi-millionaire, best player in the world have to borrow any money? Would you lend him money?

 
Reply
 

jspencer612
over 8 years ago

I_P_Freely is not very bright. I went through all of your posts and you really are a moron.

 
Reply