If it was so easy to win an online bracelet, then why haven’t you won one of your very own?
That’s a good question.
If you were fortunate enough to win one online, would you value it as much as winning a live WSOP event for the gold?
That’s a better question.
The first online bracelet was awarded 11 years ago
The first WSOP online bracelet was awarded in 2015 in a $1,000 NLH event. The tournament played down to six players on WSOP.com before finishing live on the ESPN main stage, where Anthony Spinella took home the bracelet and $197,743.
Only nine online bracelets were awarded in 2019. Then the number exploded to 85 in 2020, 110 in 2022, and 115 in 2024. Last year, the WSOP awarded 104 online bracelets.
During a recent conversation with legendary streamer and poker pro Lex Veldhuis, one of the best online players yet to win a bracelet, he pushed back on the idea that winning one online somehow comes easy or is valued less.
“It’s hella tough to win one. It’s unbelievable, those fields. If you think an online bracelet’s easy, go play and win one.”
The subject came up again during our recent conversation with iconic WSOP commentator Norman Chad.
And once Norman got started on online bracelets, frankly, we couldn’t shut him up.
Much to our delight.
Lex Veldhuis is one of the best players in the game who have not won a WSOP bracelet, online or live.
All the young dudes
Can you throw your two cents in the ring about how you feel about WSOP online bracelets and how that stacks up to live wins?
We keep going back and forth on this. Honestly, I don't know which way to go.
Early on, when the online young guns came along, they brought the first version of GTO, analytics, math, and all that. They understood the game better, the X's and O's, than their predecessors. Which, by the way, was way overdue.
It just makes perfect sense. If all you're doing is looking at the other guy in the eye and going, ‘You don't got it, I got it. I'm going to go all-in,’ you're leaving a lot of meat on the bone.
The young guns were playing at a higher level at the online games; they would laugh at live players.
So, you agree with Lex?
Well, as Lex told you, ‘Come play our online tournaments and see how you're going to do against all these guys. Good luck.’
The skill level there is probably higher than it was 20 years ago. That’s why live and online bracelets should be equal.
Still, you have expressed some concerns about online poker in the past.
The reason I have a problem is that we need to clean up online games 100%, but we don’t fully know everything integrity-wise that is in play.
Do you value winning a WSOP online bracelet as much as you would winning one live? Comment below.The integrity of online poker
What changes would you make to online poker?
I would make it a requirement to see and know who we're playing against.
That part bothers me. Somebody could win a bracelet, and it’s not even that person who's winning it, it's somebody else who's playing in their spot. It might be their dog.
I have a smart dog named Blue. My dog can outplay me. Blue's got a better chance of winning a bracelet or a ring online than I do.
I can believe that. Have you ever even played online?
I started playing online during the pandemic. I only played because it was a bunch of people that I knew.
We were all on Zoom. We all knew each other and could see one another; it was good.
What’s the bottom line for you regarding live versus online bracelets?
You have to embrace online; it's hard to be 'a little bit' pregnant. If you embrace online, then the online bracelets have to be equal to the live bracelets. Sorry, Mike Matusow.
But obviously, that’s the case as long as everything is lined up correctly with no cheating and no integrity problems online.
2026 WSOP Main Event fourth place finisher, Michael Gagliano, has won two of his three WSOP bracelets online.One of the best players at the year’s WSOP Main Event final table, Michael Gagliano, has won three out of his four bracelets online.
I know. I heard something interesting just before the Main Event. An old buddy of mine, Eric Raskin, does a podcast, and he was interviewing Michael Gagliano.
They thought that the WSOP had dropped the ball on this. From the very beginning, they should have established online as a separate category.
And your idea is to propose awarding something different than bracelets and rings?
Yes. You can award bracelets for World Series events, rings for circuit events. And for online events, you get a watch or a necklace or perhaps an anklet.
Is there a Norman Chad rant you could close with here? We would be honored.
OK. Online bracelets are 95% no-limit hold’em. It's the WSOP of NLH. That disappoints me greatly. It’s not fair to the people who play mixed games.
As you're accumulating WSOP stats, legacies, and earnings, it's all no-limit online.
Why do you think that is?
At first, they said it was a logistical problem where their software isn't set up for mixed games.
Everybody's software is set up for mixed games, okay?
I don't know anything about technology. I can sit in my bathtub and set up some software for a mixed game right now on my Radio Shack Dell computer.
We need to bring mixed games online for bracelets events at a reasonable clip. Here’s the thing: By the time I am six feet under – actually, I am gonna have them bury me nine feet under so you can’t dig me up – I want to make sure I have done everything in my publicly-schooled power (UMd ’81) to elevate mixed games to their rightful place in poker.
Follow Norman on X (if you dare).
Do you think online and live bracelets should be treated equally, or should online winners receive 'an anklet'? Let us know in the comments.
Additional images courtesy of the WSOP/Rational Intellectual Holdings Ltd.
