Are WSOP Circuit Rings Worthless?

Last updated on November 12th, 2024

Affiliate Disclaimer Please note that some links on Legal US Poker Sites are affiliate links. We may receive a commission, at no extra cost to you, if you click through our links and make a purchase from one of our partners.

Two things can be true at the same time: There can be an excess of poker tournaments that award gold bracelets and rings, and those representations of poker victories can still be valuable and meaningful.

For years, there has been talk of the World Series of Poker devaluing its gold bracelet by offering too many of them throughout the year. In an effort to offer bracelet opportunities to every market reachable by online poker, there are more than 200 of them awarded each year now. The latest conversation about WSOP gold, however, pertains to the WSOP Circuit rings. Maurice Hawkins, who has often been the world leader in ring wins and second now to Ari Engel, recently disparaged the rings by calling them “worthless.”

There is a difference between debating the number of bracelets and/or rings, as well as other possibilities for rewarding players, and devaluing them altogether. Poker players at all levels set their sights on those tokens of victory, so a healthy discussion of the topic keeps from alienating those that keep the industry thriving enough to warrant all of those bracelets and rings.

Hawkins Opens Up

Maurice Hawkins is a longtime tournament poker player, one who has more than $5.8M in lifetime live tournament earnings. Among the many titles he has claimed since his first recorded cash in 2005 is a collection of WSOP Circuit rings. In fact, he has 16 of them, the most recent of which he won in the 2024 WSOPC Main Event at Harrah’s Cherokee.

Hawkins has long been in contention with a few others – Ari Engel, Daniel Lowery, and Joshua Reichard – on the WSOP Circuit ring leaderboard. Engel now possesses 18 of them, having won his most recent one in a WSOPC Online event in September, just six months after his 17^th in another WSOPC Online event. Hawkins was in second place in that contest with 16 rings alone until Daniel Lowery won his 16^th in a WSOP Circuit event on November 4 to tie Hawkins.

Since mid-October, Hawkins and fellow WSOP Circuit ring winner Byron Johnson have been teasing a podcast-type discussion in which the two debate the value of said rings. In the first teaser video, Hawkins opines:

“I think (the WSOP) watered it down to a point of where they’re worthless.” He gives the example that some rings are awarded in tournaments with first-place prizes of $4K, $5K, or $6K. He also notes that what was once a US-based circuit of tournaments with a limited Tournament of Champions.
“Now, with this whole online thing, you could play $200 tournaments with 60 or 70 people in it and win a ring. It’s diluting it and making it where it doesn’t even mean anything anymore. It used to mean something. Now it means nothing.”

The two men agree that rings won online and live should be classified differently, as both require different styles and strategies to win. Just as there are differences between WSOP bracelets and rings, online events should be treated differently as well, especially considering the possibility that online events are more susceptible to cheating.

Johnson clarifies that he doesn’t want to disparage the World Series of Poker bracelets or rings but feels that a change to categorizing wins is in order. Hawkins agrees.

Nothing or Everything

While Hawkins is known for many achievements in poker, one of his most notable accomplishments is his enduring proficiency on the WSOP Circuit. That is most easily measured by rings. Having spent years holding the record for most rings or being in the top two or three ring winners in the world, one might think that Hawkins would have more appreciation for that symbol of his winnings.

To say that WSOPC rings have no worth, value, or meaning is to disparage his own accomplishments.

Even further, his comments insult the talents of Lowery and Engel. Every one of Lowery’s 16 rings have been in live Circuit events. And Engel, who holds 18 rings and three World Series of Poker bracelets, and who has accumulated more than $8.8M in lifetime live earnings, has been on the grind for years working to always improve his live and online skills.

Clearly, rings are not meaningless. If so, Hawkins would lose his rank among the best, as would Engel and Lowery. All three have worked hard to achieve those goals, and the rings symbolize their successes. They certainly don’t have to mean everything to these or any players, but to discount their meaning entirely is short-sighted and irresponsible.

Symbols of Success

When a poker player reaches a certain level of success, they can forget where they came from, what it took to get started, and how any victories bolstered their confidence to keep at it. To discount the ring – or any trophy awarded to a tournament winner – is to take away the representation of success that a player worked so hard to achieve.

The money a player wins in a tournament may not last long. It may be a small amount that feeds their bankroll or pays a bill. No matter the amount, money will not stay in one place to admire and serve as a remembrance, but a ring or a trophy will remain. It is a forever a symbol of that person’s accomplishment, no matter how big or small in another person’s eyes.

Healthy Ecosystem

The smaller buy-in ring events on the WSOP Circuit bring many more players into the game. When they win, they play the bigger tournaments, and those extra buy-ins create larger WSOPC Main Event prize pools. It is a simple concept, but it all feeds into a healthy poker ecosystem that makes the mid-major tournament circuit thrive.

Do all event winners need rings? That’s a separate debate. It’s actually one that Johnson and Hawkins could have spent more time discussing if Hawkins hadn’t started with the opinion that all rings are meaningless.

Valid Arguments Deserve Debate

As noted, there can be a valid and even consequential debate about the awarding of rings to every WSOP Circuit winner. In fact, poker players sometimes do have meaningful debates about the number of WSOP bracelets awarded each year. With the addition of more WSOP Online events during the pandemic and continuing from that point forward, the number of bracelets (and rings) has increased. In recent years, the WSOP awards upwards of 200 bracelets each year, some for high roller events on GGPoker and others for 50-player events on WSOP’s ring-fenced poker site in Pennsylvania. (Full disclosure: I have argued for years that the number of bracelets is too high and getting higher every year, not a positive trend, in my opinion.)

Among the debates that Hawkins and Johnson could have sparked:

Would the WSOP consider awarding a special ring to WSOPC Main Event winners and a smaller ring or other token to other event winners on the Circuit?
Would players support a WSOP bracelet awarded for live tournament wins with a separate token for WSOP Online tournaments?

With the NSUS purchase of the World Series of Poker into the GGPoker fold, there are a plethora of questions that have arisen as to potential changes to the entire WSOP system. There are questions to raise about the future of all WSOP events, and now is the time to have those discussions with the hopes of influencing the future of bracelets and rings.

However, to start the discussion by disparaging WSOPC rings altogether, dismissing all of their worth and in turn the people who have won them, doesn’t provide much of a springboard for productive debates.

Jennifer Newell is the Editor in Chief at LegalUsPokerSites. Jennifer Newell has nearly two decades of experience in the iGaming industry. She is a respected poker media member, contributing to publications like US Today, Playfecta, Cardplayer Lifestyle, and PokerScout. Her knowledge spans gambling legislation and the broader online gaming world. She has spent years advocating for diversity, most notably gender equity in the traditionally male-dominated poker sphere.