Contracts And Poker: Gaining Information Between Hands

Is it against the rules to consult with a friend to get advice during a poker tournament?

After Jonathan Tamayo won the main event at this year’s WSOP, a controversy broke out about his frequent trips to the rail to consult with friends, including former main event winner Joe McKeehen, and poker training app developer and top pro Dominik Nitsche, who was using a laptop that Tamayo frequently viewed.

It is not clear what Nitsche was displaying on the laptop, but for our purposes, let’s assume the worst – that he was providing Tamayo with information generated by poker software such as simulations and GTO solvers, collectively known as Real Time Assistance (RTA).

Let’s first look at the WSOP rules. The rules about what is and is not allowed at the poker table are always evolving in order to keep up with technological changes. The applicable rule in the 2024 WSOP Rules is found in Rule 64, Approved Electronic Devices; Prohibited Filming and Streaming. Subsection © provides:

Participants are prohibited from using betting apps, gaming charts, or any poker information tool while involved in a hand.

This rule only prohibits the use of RTA “while involved in a hand,” and not between hands. I have heard some commentators say that this rule makes use of the RTAs between hands a “gray area.” I don’t agree. It seems to me black and white: use of RTAs while involved in a hand is prohibited; use of RTAs when not involved in a hand is not prohibited.

But wait – there’s more! In 2023, the WSOP made the following announcement:

If caught using RTA/GTO software during a hand, player will be subject to penalty up to and including DQ (disqualification) / trespass. We reserve the right to further penalize a player for using RTA/GTO in any other situation in our sole and absolute discretion. Players may continue to use their device to play wsop.com or use the Caesars Sportsbook app while in/out of a hand.

Furthermore, announcements were apparently made during play this year to the same effect. According to the 2023 announcement, the WSOP has the right to penalize a player for using RTA “in other situations,” and the announcement in 2024 apparently stated, “We ask you to please do not use any type of poker solvers at any point in time at the table or in the tournament area.” Both of these announcements would clearly address players using RTA between hands and would likely include a friend using it and passing the information on to the player.

Does the WSOP have the right to penalize players for actions that are not prohibited by specific rules? Yes. As I have stated many times, players will always try to game the system, exploiting loopholes and ambiguities in the rules. It is impossible for the rule makers to conceive of every advantage-taking situation and address it in the rules. For this reason, there is an uber-rule that gives the WSOP the authority to act in the absence of a specific rule. It is found in Rule 51:

Where a situation arises that is not covered by these rules, Host Properties shall have the sole authority to render a judgment, including the imposition of a penalty, in accordance with the best interests of the tournament and the maintenance of its integrity and public confidence.

This right to act “in accordance with the best interest of the tournament” always reminds me of the similar power given to the Commissioner of Baseball to act “in the best interests of baseball.”

Finally, the use of some RTA may be prohibited by Nevada law. Nevada Revised Statutes 465.075 states:

Use or possession of device, software or hardware to obtain advantage at playing game prohibited. It is unlawful for any person to use … any computerized, electronic, electrical or mechanical device, or any software or hardware, or any combination thereof, which is designed, constructed, altered or programmed to obtain an advantage at playing any game in a licensed gaming establishment … including, without limitation, a device that: …

3. Analyzes the probability of the occurrence of an event relating to the game; or
4. Analyzes the strategy for playing or betting to be used in the game
If Tamayo did violate the WSOP Rules or the statute, it was up to the floor during the tournament to call him out for it. Even if the possible infraction was not called to their attention, it would have been obvious to them that Tamayo was frequently consulting his rail and apparently getting computer-assisted advice. Why did they not act?

It may be that officials hate line-drawing. Rules prohibiting the use of RTAs during play of a hand are easy to enforce. But enforcement between the play of hands is more problematic. If a player was consulting his or her cell phone, officials would have to know for what purpose they were doing so. And if they wanted to extend the rule to consultation with friends between hands, they would have to know what the player was discussing with friends. That is not easily done.

Some sources of information and coaching advice have always been acceptable. I loved the moment at the 2005 final table when Steve Dannenmann was trying to decide whether to call a bet from eventual champion Joe Hachem.

Dannenmann reached into his pocket and pulled out some 3×5 cards on which he had written advice to himself. On this occasion, he read the note that said: “It is a mistake to fold the best hand, but it is not a big mistake.”

Would those cards be a “poker information tool” prohibited by Rule 64©?

A more common example occurs when the livestream of a tournament is delayed and a friend who is watching the stream conveys information about past hands that allows a player to make adjustments. This is so widely accepted that the commentators often say something like, “X is probably learning right now that he got bluffed by Y in that big hand.” Using an RTA seems like similar information gathering, but timelier and more precise.

Perhaps instead of trying to regulate the kind of information that a player could acquire, the WSOP could limit the number of times a player was allowed to leave the table. This would be like the baseball rule that limits a coach’s mound visits to the pitcher – visits that are often used to communicate advice. That would be an easier line to draw.

No doubt the rule makers are mulling this over and we will soon have the latest incarnation of rules that try to keep up with changing times. I don’t envy them the task. But it would be “in the best interests of the tournament” to resolve the issue. ♠

Scott J. Burnham is Professor Emeritus at Gonzaga University School of Law in Spokane, Washington. He can be reached at [email protected].