WSOP scandal---Anthony is dead wrong

The winner of the Main Event cheated his way to victory. He brought a group of high-level pros and parked them in the front row of the gallery so he could talk to them during the play. The pros brought a computer so they could analyze every hand after it had been played.

In this week's video, Anthony opines that this was acceptable because the rules didn't expressly forbid it. There are some major problems with that:

1) Sports and games of all types have had, for centuries, occasions where someone bends but doesn't break the rules to gain an advantage--one example that comes to mind is the spitball in baseball. The ultimate result has always been that a rule is created to stop that specific behavior. Given that that is what ALWAYS happens, one could say that there's a consensus that rule-benders harm the sports/games they play (Blair Rodman's main objection was precisely this).

2) The winner/cheater didn't just receive advice on how he should have played the hands "after the fact," as Anthony puts it. He also received advice on his opponent's tendencies and skills--since for any hand that went to showdown, his opponent's hand would have been shown and input into the poker bot for analysis. Thus, the winner/cheater obtained information that he should have only been able to obtain under his own power.

3) Sacred rule of poker: ONE PLAYER TO A HAND. Period. No exceptions for "after the fact."

4) Anthony brings up the existence of coaches in other sports. But for those sports, coaches are and have been an integral part of the game. The proper analogy to the WSOP Final Table is a chess tournament, where you absolutely CANNOT get up from the table to go consult with Viktor about whether your last move was the best one or not.

5) I concur with Anthony's panel that the winner/cheater should be allowed to keep his winnings and not be sanctioned. I would also never, ever sit at the same table with him or anyone else that had brought a cadre of assistant pros and a computer and kept ducking away from the table to consult with them. I think I can speak for 99.99% of all poker players when I say that they would never play under such conditions, either. It was brought up, I think by Blair, that you can't really sell the WSOP Final Table dream to an amateur if he realizes that should he make it there, he'll be up against a small army of pros and a computer in addition to his erstwhile opponents. Anthony's pretty goddamn lame excuse for that is that that's what differentiates the pro from the amateur--the pro takes advantage of every angle possible. (Though I can't see Doyle Brunson or Phil Hellmuth ever using a gang of assistants, let alone a gang with a computer bot.) Sorry, that dog don't hunt. The WSOP isn't a pros-only event. The whole Moneymaker shtick that fueled the poker boom is that any schlub could get lucky and win (and a few schlubs did). Now, it's going to be, right or wrong, "How could I possibly win now?"

6) And by the way, what was his opponent expected to do while the winner/cheater was having his confabs? Sit there and scratch himself? Take a nap? It was at the very, very least, rude and disrespectful for the winner/cheater to duck away from the table after every hand. It shouldn't have been allowed--the dealer should have dealt him in, and he would have forfeited his blind if he wasn't seated. That would have stopped THAT in a hurry!

Did the 2nd place player ever broach the fact that he thought the use of the computer and advisors seemed inappropriate? 

Is there a rule that strictly forbids the use of computers and advisors during play?

Now, there is a rule that they have for the Final Table that they can't wear headphones, which was brought up in the video.  Blair brought up the fact that Tamayo had an earpiece during the final table.  He even started out wearing a hoodie to conceal it, and during the airing of the final table he is seen taking it out and giving the ear piece to one of his rail gang, who discreetly put in his pocket.

Bottom line, at least in my opinion, they need to make a rule to either specifically allow the technology at the rail, or ban it. 

I side with Frank B and Blair on this one.  It takes away from the integrity of the game, and people are going to be less likely to want to play going forward if they have to deal with a team of guys helping out another competitor. 

Just my two cents.  

To my way of thinking, this isn't a rules issue at all--it's an ethics issue. Tamayo acted unethically, while remaining within the letter of the rules---but sure as shit not the spirit!

Poker is NOT a team sport. Period.

The only personal experience I can apply to this is the year that I won The WIse Guys Contest, which is an invitation-only football handicapping competition. I went into the final week needing one point. Each week's double play was worth two points, single play was one. The rules did not expressly forbid taking both sides of the same game, so I did that. Well, the folks running the contest blew a gasket and said I'd be disqualified if I didn't change my plays.

I was not happy because I was doing what any savvy gambler would do. But they were running the contest and even though nothing expressly forbade me doing that, they forced me to change. Well, I have to believe that the WSOP, as detail focused as they are, has written into their rules the right to make decisions on the fly for the good of the event. They did not do so, so I blame them, not the player who was exploiting the lack of rules.

I see these poker tournaments as almost laden with unenforceable rules. If someone wants badly to win and become a celebrity, I can see them paying a premium to have another final table participant dump chips to them if the opportunity arises (a la in the ESPN series Tilt). The money involved just isn't that great if somebody wants to manipulate the event by paying people off. There's almost no way to definitively shut down cheating.

Interestingly, one of the guests in this week's LVA video describes a football contest situation very similar to yours. As with you, the people running the tournament blew a gasket when the leader bet both sides of games to ensure a win.

For what it's worth, that is neither unethical nor cheating. I can see a rule coming into play forbidding it, though.

Daniel Negreanu has commented on this and has said there were many announcements during the WSOP that solvers were not allowed at the table or in the tournament area, if you were caught using one you were subject to disqualification. Also, headsets were not allowed at the final table, on Doug Polks' YouTube channel, he has a video that seems to show a guy on the rail pulling a headphone out of the winning player's ear and handing it to guy next to him who put in his pocket while they were celebrating the win. I think it's cheating, and a really bad look for WSOP, I quit playing online during the Full Tilt scandal, and I don't play live anymore but if I did this may cause me to stop playing tournaments.

Yup, I reference the earpiece situation earlier, and I agree, that's cheating. 

Yes you did and you're right

 Everyone should expect new rules and guidelines for next years WSOP tournament(s). 

Anything they do will be year-to-year catching-up stopgap stuff. As Musk has said, actual integration is only a couple of years away, when folks who want to be Borg can be Borg. I don't think there's any way to monitor or legislate those kinds of integrations. 

The era of people playing chess or poker without AI integration is almost over. Humans thinking on their own have no shot against integrated play.