In recent weeks, the World Series of Poker (WSOP) has faced growing scrutiny after disqualifying not one but two winners across major events, including GGPoker’s $25,000 GGMillion$ Super High Roller and WSOP.com’s Player of the Series. In each case, the players were stripped of their winnings for alleged rule violations, but their coveted WSOP bracelets were not reassigned to the runners-up.
Chris Brewer, who finished second in the GGMillion$ event, saw his prize adjusted to the original first-place amount — yet the bracelet, the pinnacle of poker achievement, remains unawarded. This has left many in the poker world asking: When the champion is disqualified, why not give the bracelet to the next player in line?
Backstory and the WSOP’s No-Reassignment Policy
The latest chapter in this saga began with GGPoker’s $25,000 GGMillion$ event, a tournament that drew high-stakes players from around the world and ultimately crowned “forzaitalia” as its champion. However, following suspicions of multi-accounting — a violation of online poker rules—GGPoker disqualified “forzaitalia,” stripped the winnings, and made an unprecedented redistribution of over $1.1 million in prize money among the cashing players. Chris Brewer, the runner-up, received an additional $256,866, bringing his total prize to the original first-place payout. Despite the adjusted prize, Brewer did not receive the WSOP bracelet that would have signified his victory.
Meanwhile, on WSOP.com, the winner of the Player of the Series leaderboard was disqualified for similarly undisclosed reasons, nullifying their achievements in the series. Cherish Andrews, the runner-up in one of the events won by the disqualified player, saw a similar outcome. Like Brewer, she was awarded an adjusted prize but missed out on receiving the bracelet — a decision the WSOP has consistently upheld.
For both Brewer and Andrews, the reality of these disqualifications has been bittersweet. They walked away with winnings adjusted to reflect their new standing but without the symbol of poker excellence for which they competed.
The Case for Reassigning Bracelets
However, the WSOP’s no-reassignment stance has met resistance from those who argue that runners-up deserve the recognition denied them by a disqualified opponent. Chris Brewer and Cherish Andrews both reached final tables in competitive events, only to face opponents later disqualified for breaking the rules. To many, it feels unfair to deny them the bracelet simply because their opponent violated terms.
Poker fans and players argue that awarding bracelets to legitimate runners-up could strengthen the WSOP’s image as an organization dedicated to fairness and integrity. The bracelet is more than a prize — it’s a symbol of skill, endurance, and adherence to poker’s highest standards. And for Brewer and Andrews, not awarding the bracelet amounts to an indirect penalty for another player’s misdeeds, an outcome that contradicts the principles of fair competition.
Reassigning the bracelet could also present the WSOP with a rare opportunity for positive publicity. A retroactive award ceremony could be an inspiring moment for poker fans worldwide, highlighting the WSOP’s commitment to rooting out cheaters while honoring those who compete fairly. In today’s social media-driven environment, moments like these can go viral, reminding the public that the WSOP prioritizes fair play over all else.
A Policy in Need of Modernization?
With GGPoker now involved with the WSOP, this may be an ideal time to rethink certain traditions, especially as the online poker sphere continues to expand. As poker becomes increasingly digital, new scenarios are arising that test traditional policies, especially those rooted in the live tournament experience. For some players and fans, not awarding a bracelet to the runner-up feels like a missed opportunity to set a progressive standard that speaks to today’s poker landscape.
For now, players like Brewer and Andrews remain without the bracelets many believe they deserve, waiting to see if the WSOP will eventually consider a policy change that aligns with the evolving dynamics of the game. As poker continues to grow, questions around integrity and fairness in awarding titles will remain central to the sport. In the end, it’s not just about winnings — it’s about ensuring that those who play by the rules are honored for their achievements.
English