Gossip Column: Did Norman Chad Throw Shade at Maria Konnikova’s WSOP Bracelet Win?

Maria Konnikova, the acclaimed author of “The Biggest Bluff” and PokerStars ambassador, finally bagged her first WSOP bracelet! She took down the $888 NLHE Fall Crazy 8’s on WSOP.com just days ago, adding $68,477 to her bankroll (her third-largest score) and proving that her poker journey, which began with research for her book, has reached new heights.

However, the jubilation surrounding Konnikova’s victory was quickly dampened by a controversial tweet from none other than Norman Chad, the well-known commentator for the WSOP. Chad, known for his witty and often sarcastic commentary, appeared to undermine Konnikova’s accomplishment by highlighting the fact that she utilized the tournament’s re-entry option, “firing four bullets” before claiming victory. Ouch!

TOURNAMENT POKER 2024

This is not to throw shade at @mkonnikova, who just won her first @WSOP bracelet.

But here is how it happens:

She played in the $888 NLHE Fall Crazy 8s event, online.

You had to be in Michigan, New Jersey or Nevada to enter. Online.

She ran out of…

— Norman Chad (@NormanChad) October 14, 2024

His tweet, which began with the seemingly innocuous statement, “This is not to throw shade at @mkonnikova,” went on to detail her multiple re-entries and how the event was open to players in Michigan, New Jersey and Nevada, concluding with a pointed remark about her finally accumulating all the chips and a bracelet. This seemingly backhanded congratulation sparked an immediate backlash from the poker community.

Several prominent figures in the poker world, including Konnikova’s mentor and poker legend Erik Seidel, were quick to defend her. Seidel, in direct response to Chad’s tweet, questioned his motives and emphasized Konnikova’s hard work and her valuable contributions to the poker community as an ambassador.

What’s the point of this Norman? She’s worked her ass off & is one of our best ambassadors.

— Erik Seidel (@Erik_Seidel) October 14, 2024

The online debate raged on, with many echoing Seidel’s sentiments and criticizing Chad for singling out Konnikova when re-entries are a standard feature in many poker tournaments. Some even went so far as to accuse Chad of sexism, suggesting that Konnikova was targeted because of her gender in a predominantly male-dominated field.

If it’s not to throw shade at her, wtf is it? why pick her win when there’s dozens like it? Maybe be a mensch and congratulate her instead of diminishing it with your stance on bracelet absurdity? Bad look. She prob checked into the Hoboken Days Inn to blast off like a savage.

— Salty (@msalsberg) October 14, 2024

Fail to see how this would be different from playing 4 individual bracelet events, bricking 3 of them, and winning the fourth?

— AKB (@BottleOnB) October 15, 2024

It’s still a 468 player field that is pretty solid. The in person tournaments are significantly softer.

I’d rank it ahead of the 104
Player field 2024 $10k limit hold em event for instance.

— Dave (@PlaymakerDavid) October 14, 2024

I don’t get why it was necessary to tag the tournament winner and belittle their accomplishment just because you don’t like the rules, which she didn’t make but she did abide by

— The Saurus (@TheSaurus831) October 16, 2024

Konnikova herself addressed the controversy in a deeply personal and revealing Substack article titled “My first WSOP bracelet: What happens when victory is tainted with bullshit?“ She eloquently expressed her pride in winning a WSOP bracelet, even an online one, and acknowledged the years of hard work that led to this achievement.

“I know people tend to look down on online bracelets as somehow less real than ones won on the live felt,” Konnikova wrote. “And I know that 468 players – well, 464, if I’m being honest, since four of those entries were my own – is far fewer than the several thousand that most summer live events routinely get. But I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t proud and happy.”

She then went on to dissect Chad’s tweet, highlighting what she perceived as his “two cardinal sins”: firstly, that she won an online bracelet in a tournament restricted to players in three states (Michigan, New Jersey, or Nevada), and secondly, that she availed herself of the re-entry option several times, implying that her victory was somehow less significant.

Konnikova didn’t mince words when addressing Chad’s intentions, stating, “So let me just say this: Norman Chad absolutely did want to throw shade on me. Otherwise, why single me out, why tag me, why the personal touch in that final bit of prose? She ran out of chips. She re-entered. She ran out of chips again. And on and on.”

She also emphasized that she was far from the only player to use re-entries in the tournament, let alone in the WSOP and that she’s been unfairly targeted. “I’ve never met Norman Chad. I don’t know what he has against me. But it’s definitely something. I am far from the only bracelet winner to rebuy—indeed, I happen to know that multiple winners of this online series in the last few weeks rebought multiple times. But I am the only one who he has chosen to single out. And the only way I stand out from the others—or from most of the live winners this summer, as most events are re-buys and the freezeout format is a rare breed—is a simple one. I’m female.”

This incident has sparked important conversations about sportsmanship, the role of commentators, and the challenges women face in competitive fields. Whether Chad’s tweet was a deliberate attempt to diminish Konnikova’s accomplishment or just a poorly worded joke, it clearly struck a nerve within the poker community.