LaptopGate: 2024 WSOP Main Event Controversy

Tamayo waiting for final cards at WSOP Main Event

Laptop Controversy after Tamayo Victory

Last week, poker veteran Jonathan Tamayo won the WSOP Main Event for $10 million after a superb final table performance. The man who, just three days prior, had been mercilessly mocked for his nitty fold with pocket queens stood triumphant in the Horseshoe Casino, a worthy and deserving champion, the last person standing in a record-breaking field.

In Tamayo’s corner were two good friends, the 2015 champion Joe McKeehan and decorated high-stakes beast Dominik Nitsche, who stood behind a laptop and phone screen. It is commonplace for WSOP finalists to retreat to their respective rails during showdowns and lulls of play but the presence of the laptop was met with concern by some members of the viewing public.

That concern deepened when photographs emerged showing that Nitsche was looking at grids and charts on his screen. While there was nothing to suggest that there was any sims being run nor real-time assistance being offered to Tamayo, the presence of solver-generated training material has now resulted in a full-blown controversy.

Parsing

Right away, I think that it’s important to parse two aspects of what we all saw during the broadcast of the WSOP Main Event last week. There is what people think should or should not have been allowed. There is also what was permitted under the rules – rules which were written and/or part of an audio announcement at the start of the tournament.

Do I believe that solvers, charts, look-up tools or other helper technology should be allowed in the spectator area, less than ten metres from the poker table? In a perfect world, no, I do not. My larger concerns in poker mostly revolve around Real-Time Assistance but it is still better if players do not to have access to any tech-help outside of their breaks, even if that help is limited to a pre-flop strategy for the next hand.

Do I think that the WSOP rules allow for the use of solvers, charts, look-up tools or other helper technology in the spectator area, less than ten meters from the poker table. Yes, I do, and since that is my interpretation of the rules, I understand why any person looking to improve their chances of winning $10 million might edge-seek in this way.

What Should be Allowed

With regard to what should and should not be allowed, there has been a lot of discussion over the last few days. Poker forums, Discord groups, X threads/Spaces, YouTube videos and the comments section of YouTube videos have been a veritable Smörgåsbord of opinion and analysis. That’s a good thing. As a community, we need to figure this out. The inexorable march of technology threatens numerous aspects of our game and we need to protect its integrity in the best ways possible.

The problem is I’m not sure how to adequately police the use of technology at the WSOP Final Table without removing the rail altogether and sequestering the players. Computer generated information about ranges, stack-size specific strategy or ICM implications can too easily be generated off-site and relayed discreetly to a spectator by phone.

To anyone who thinks that is a far-fetched notion, I can say with absolute certainty that it has already been done at umpteen WSOP final tables by people who also interpreted it as within the rules but were more conscious of the optics. The bottom line here is unenforceable rules only punish honest people, handing dishonest people the upper hand.

What the Rules Permit

With regard to what the WSOP rules permit, I have been voicing my own thoughts over the last few days. In doing so, I have been met with a lot of criticism and been accused of arguing in bad faith. I have been told that I am asking the wrong question. I have been told that my interpretation of a key phrase is simply wrong and that I am the only person in the world with that interpretation.

First and foremost, there is no mention of solvers in the official WSOP rules. However, at the start of each WSOP event this year, there was the following announcement:

“We ask you to please not use any type of poker solvers at any point in time at the table or in the tournament area. If you’re found using one of these poker solvers, there’s a possibility of being disqualified from this tournament.”

If there are to be no solvers at the table or in the tournament area, then, by implication, they are permitted outside of the tournament area. This begs the important question where does the tournament area begin and end, to which I would answer ‘the rail is the perimeter of the tournament area’. It is, after all, what separates the playing area from the spectator area. The tournament does not take place in the spectator area so it is logical (for me at least) to conclude that the rail marks the boundary. Thus, solvers are allowed on the non-playing side of the rail.

‘Duh, it Should be Obvious’

When I voiced this exact interpretation during a recent X Spaces, I was met with ridicule. “Of course the rail area is part of the tournament area”. “Why?”, I asked. “It just is”. While I am very open to an opposing interpretation, and a good one may exist, I am yet to hear anything better than “duh, it should be obvious”.

Esteemed tournament director, perennial Poker Hall Of Fame nominee and all round legend Matt Savage told me in no uncertain terms that the tournament area is the tournament room. On a personal note, I find it difficult to argue with someone with his vast knowledge and experience but that did just made me wonder “why didn’t they just say ‘tournament room’ then?”

So, on Matt’s request, I ran a poll to find out if I am, in his words “the only person” who thinks that people on the non-playing side of the rail is in the tournament area. There was a lot on the line for me as later on in that same Spaces, Daniel ‘The Kid Poker’ Negreanu found out about my interpretation, castigated me for making a semantic argument and called me a nincompoop (better than a ‘dick napkin’ I guess). As the results of the poll came in, I wondered what percentage would justify my claims to ambiguity. 10% maybe? Certainly 20%.

If a TD asked you to leave the tournament area, is he/she asking you to go to the other side of the rail or leave the room where the tournament is taking place?
— 🃏 David Lappin 🃏 (@dklappin) July 22, 2024

Semantics and Pedantry

I will freely admit that I am being a stickler when it comes to getting the legalese right on this one. I can tell that my punctiliousness is annoying some people and to those people, all I can do is assure them that there is a point to my pedantry. If my nitpickery helps to make organisers realise the need for transparent language on this issue then I’m fine with whatever blowback I get for seeming like a dog with a bone.

Semantics are actually very important in the realm of rules and following rules and penalties for not following rules. Weak, ambiguous language and undefined terms must be replaced by a strongly worded, explicit rule with clearly defined terms, replete with the consequences of breaking that rule. Also, it would be nice if the WSOP could stretch to actually having a tournament director present to enforce all the rules.

Reaching a consensus on what is fair, what is enforceable, what is optically acceptable and what is fundamentally proper is all well and good. However, making a company, especially one that is lax at best and incompetent at worst, turn that into a well-worded, impenetrable rule will be the legacy of this controversy and getting that right is what really matters.

David is a professional poker player, strategy writer, podcast producer, and poker brand ambassador. He has written over 600 blogs and articles on poker; including news, opinion and strategy. He has been a professional poker player since 2006 and is the producer and host of the 2-time GPI Global Poker Award winning podcast ‘The Chip Race.’ David has also been a brand ambassador for Unibet since 2017.