The WSOP rules on electronic devices have finally arrived. When examining a rule, it is always helpful to ask, “What is the purpose of the rule?” That is, “What problem is it trying to solve?”
Poker is very much an individualistic game. Every decision is completely up to one person – no teammates, no coaches, no study aids. In a simpler era, this goal was pretty much achieved with the rule, “One player to a hand.”
But things have become more complicated with the availability of assistance coming in various forms – charts, computers, cell phone apps, coaches on the rail – and with greater incentive to get help with complex GTO decisions to make and millions of dollars on the line. How can access to this assistance be limited?
When fashioning a rule, there is often the problem of Scylla and Charybdis. As you may recall, Greek sailors had to navigate a strait on one side of which was a monster and on the other side a whirlpool. Navigating between these two dangers is the challenge. In drafting a rule, the problem is to navigate between the Scylla of limited measures with a narrow focus and the Charybdis of broad measures with a sweeping effect.
For example, if you want to limit a cell phone to particular uses, the rule could say you may access X, but not Y. But the limited approach is impractical to monitor – how do you know what a player is looking at on their phone?
So, the broad approach is a tempting alternative — no cell phones period. This approach is easier to administer, but the price we pay is the loss of harmless activities that get caught up in the ban.
This is the dilemma the WSOP has faced in trying to achieve that laudable goal of levelling the playing field by restoring poker to a game of autonomous actors. By dissecting Rule 64, we can see the advantages and disadvantages of the limited and the broad approaches.
This column is based on the version of rules available on May 15; it discusses only live events and not online events.
Subsection A reproduces, without comment, a criminal statute, NRS 465.075. Players in Nevada are of course already bound by Nevada law, so this was undoubtedly added for its in terrorem effect – to scare players into compliance.
In an earlier column (Vol. 37, Issue 26) I called into doubt whether this statute is applicable when a device is not used during the play of a hand. In any event, if there is violation of the WSOP rules, the WSOP will seek its own remedies rather than rely on the state to prosecute a player. So I don’t think anyone will be scared into compliance by this statute.
Subsection B uses the limited approach. It allows players to use electronic devices and headsets until the final three tables. However, this is true only if the devices “do not contain or use artificial intelligence or any other type of electronic assistance that could give a Participant an advantage over another Participant.”
The rule raises obvious policing problems. On its face the rule goes too far, for what is the problem with the device “containing” the assistance if it is not used? And what exactly constitutes “electronic assistance?” Can a player consult GTO charts on their phone between hands?
Subsection C eliminates the policing problem by using the broad approach: no electronic devices at the final three tables of a tournament or a Feature Table. It makes sense to have an easily enforced rule at this late stage of the tournament. And because of its limited application, it should not cause much inconvenience.
Subsection D finally gets around to suggesting what is actually banned: “charts, apps, artificial intelligence or any other form of electronic assistance.” This definition is ambiguous, for it is not clear whether “other forms of electronic assistance” modifies charts.
That is, can one consult paper charts? In any event, this rule applies the prohibition to spectators, thereby also preventing players from obtaining information indirectly. It also provides that “Spectators are also prohibited from providing live real-time assistance or coaching through direct (speaking) or indirect (text, e-mail, through any electronic device, etc.) communication to an active Participant in any WSOP event.”
This limited approach presents an almost unsurmountable problem with policing the rule – how do you know the purpose for which spectators are using a phone or computer, how do you know what they are saying to players at the rail, and how do you know what is in messages they are sending to players?
I find subsection E confusing. It starts off straightforward enough, allowing WSOP personnel to remove electronic devices during the final three tables. This will help enforce subsection C.
But then it states: “No devices will be allowed to be used in the tournament room during these late stages of streamed events and no coaching from anywhere within the tournament room will be allowed; this includes viewing of the tournament stream and usage of any electronic assistance.”
Will there be a special room for the final three tables or does this rule apply to every other table in a vast ballroom? Since players have already been told in subsection C that they can’t use devices, this ban must be directed to spectators.
If there can be “no coaching,” will rail visits be allowed? Will anyone police what is being said at those visits to prevent coaching? Why state that “this includes viewing of the tournament stream and usage of any electronic assistance” if you have already been told you can’t use devices at all?
Subsection F is not relevant to the present discussion so I am skipping over it, but let’s look at subsection G in its entirety, which states that “Participants are prohibited from using betting apps, gaming charts, or any poker information tool while involved in a hand.”
But it goes on to say that “Notwithstanding the foregoing, Participants may utilize the WSOP+ Live registration app, WSOP.com, or Caesars Mobile Sports App while involved in a hand as use of these applications does not give an unfair advantage to the Participant.”
The rule begins by prohibiting apps and tools during the play of a hand. This suggests that these items are not necessarily prohibited between hands. It then itemizes some exceptions – things that may be used during the play of a hand.
Why in the world are there exceptions?
I always thought the rule was that you can’t use your phone during the play of a hand, but curiously there is no rule that says that. Why invite the need to police the purpose for which the phone is being used? Is Caesars afraid it is going to lose online tournament entries or revenue from sports betting if it prohibits players from using the app during play of a hand?
The WSOP made a good start at fashioning rules aimed at restoring the individualistic aspects of poker. The broad approach at the final three tables should prevent any issues there. But prior to that, because of the limited approach, there are too many unanswered questions and too many policing problems to achieve the desired results.
Scott J. Burnham is Professor Emeritus at Gonzaga University School of Law in Spokane, Washington. He can be reached at profburnham@yahoo.com.