Controversy erupted across the poker world as Jonathan Tamayo closed in on his victory in the World Series of Poker Main Event and its $10 million first-place prize. The issue? Hand after hand, Tamayo rushed to the rail to confer with friends, including Dominik Nitsche and Joe McKeehen, to seemingly discuss strategy, including what was widely believed by viewers to be consulting 'solver' information on a laptop Nitsche had set up on a rail just feet away from the action.
To be clear, Tamayo's actions were not the use of a form of RTA (real-time assistance) in the very strictest sense, since he was unable to visit his friends and backers on the rail mid-hand to receive input on what play to make. What most viewers believed Tamayo was instead doing was getting immediate feedback on hands he'd just played to see if he'd played them optimally.
Such immediate feedback could have helped shape Tamayo's strategy in nearly-live time, especially if his final opponent, amateur player Jordan Griff, displayed any strategic holes or tendencies that could also be exploited in future hands. Such knowledge could have allowed Tamayo to veer away from a GTO approach to something more specifically tailored to optimize his chances against Griff and others at the final table.
Was it a form of unfair play? Was it bad for poker's image? These were the questions central to the debate since Tamayo closed out his win. Those doing the arguing have split along familiar lines, with those fine with using technological aids wherever and whenever possible pitted against those who decried the strategem as being negative in more ways than one.
Nitsche sits at core of follow-up debate
Nitsche, who owned and operated the now-infamous laptop on the rail, has emerged as the central figure amid the ongoing storm. Nitsche owns and operates a solver site, and he left little doubt about what was going on as he clashed with Alan 'mister_keating' Keating and others on X (Twitter). Nitsche appeared quite happy to stir the pot, too:
Keating fired right back at that:
That led to an extended exchange between the two, with Nitsche painting himself in the most mercenary terms possible, meaning he viewed his job as making money by whatever means necessary, and creating and enforcing rules was left to be someone else's role:
To be clear, Nitsche never specifically acknowledged that he was running simulations on the laptop while inputting hands and stack sizes. But he also didn't deny it, as this exchange with another player shows:
Prominent backers of live simulation-running hard to find
Virtually no prominent players have emerged on social media to publicly back the 'team' play (as some commenters called it) of Tamayo, Nitsche, and McKeehen. But players on the opposite side haven't been hard to find. Sam 'squidpoker' Grafton, for instance:
Hall of Fame nominee Kathy Liebert shared similar thoughts:
Will Jaffe chose to offer a pointed pictorial comparison on how the game has changed over the past two decades:
However, as Patrick Leonard stated, what happened isn't new, it was maybe just more visible this year.
Optics, optics, optics
One of the themes consistent among many commenters was that whether the tactic was technically legal or not, it looked terrible for the concept of fair play as the scene played out. That was worrisome, especially when it came to casual players and viewers, who might see Tamayo constantly running to the rail to check on what were seemingly the outputs of simulations, and then decide that this is no longer a game they want to invest their time and money into.
It's a problem that cuts deep in multiple ways, since those casual players are the lifeblood that fuels the income of pro players. As online poker has learned, bleeding those players dry too quickly results, ultimately, in fewer players.
Comments such as these were common:
Changes to be made?
Several online opinion-offerers harped on the fact that a railbird running simulations on the rail might not be technically illegal, even if it might cross ethical boundaries. What those opinions miss, however, is that the WSOP's published rules give the series and tournament staff wide latitude in addressing situations of concern not already covered in the rules.
In practical terms, that means that the WSOP could have stepped in and banned (or even temporarily confiscated) Nitsche's laptop, and taken other steps. Yet those things didn't happen.
To date, the WSOP has not issued comment about the situation, and it may never do so. Yet this could also turn into one of those 'upon further consideration' instances, where a change appears - seemingly out of nowhere - in the 2025 rules. The WSOP certainly does not want to destroy the atmosphere of 'the Mothership' (the main televised table and set) that it has worked so hard to build up. But the WSOP may find itself obligated to move toward a chess-world solution, perhaps banning or temporarily confiscating smart devices such as computers and phones from players and railbirds alike.
The entire situation creates a sense of needing a change to assure more of a balanced playing field for all participants, amateurs and pros alike. The poker world may be approaching one of those sea-change moments.
