RTA Crackdown: Poker Site Bans Player Over Range Charts usage
The online poker community has been buzzing with discussion following WPT Global's recent decision to ban Irish poker streamer Alan Finn after he was caught with preflop charts visible during his Twitch broadcast. The news has reignited the ongoing debate about what constitutes real-time assistance (RTA) and how poker sites should enforce their rules against external aids.
The Alan Finn Incident
Alan Finn, known as "AlanFPoker" on Twitch where he has approximately 2,700 followers, was streaming low-stakes holdem cash games on WPT Global when poker pro Patrick Leonard shared screenshots showing Excel spreadsheets visible on Finn's screen. The spreadsheets in question were labeled "WPT Range" and, rather humorously, "Moms Shopping List" – both containing basic preflop hand ranges.
WPT Global wasted no time in their response, announcing on their X (formerly Twitter) account: "We don't tolerate RTA. AlanFPoker has been banned with immediate effect." The site followed with another message urging players to "keep the game alive."
According to WPT Global's rulebook, specifically Rule 9.2, players are "prohibited from using devices such as robots or any other external player assistance (EPAs) program that distort normal play on the Site and give the player an unfair advantage." Their prohibited activity list explicitly mentions "referencing software, strategy charts or plots, range matrices, or any other aid that includes betting or strategy information."
The Excel Spreadsheet Controversy
The ban has sparked considerable debate within the poker community. Some argue that basic Excel spreadsheets differ significantly from sophisticated solver software that performs complex calculations in real-time.
"Having excel sheets open is not true poker RTA... it is worthy of a warning and not an outright ban," one player commented in response to WPT Global's announcement. Others point out that regardless of the format, any external reference material used during play violates the site's terms of service.
This raises interesting questions about the boundaries between study materials and prohibited assistance. When Doug Polk and Daniel Negreanu negotiated terms for their high-stakes holdem heads-up match in 2020, they actually agreed that preflop charts were acceptable to use during play.
The Arbitrary Line Between Study and Cheating
What makes the Finn case particularly interesting is how it highlights the arbitrary nature of what constitutes "prohibited assistance" across the poker industry. Basic preflop charts—essentially memorization aids showing which hands to play from different positions in Texas holdem—are considered beginner-level study materials by most poker educators. Many players have these ranges memorized after sufficient practice.
Yet the line between permitted study and prohibited assistance remains frustratingly vague. Is a player who has memorized optimal ranges fundamentally different from one who glances at a chart? What about players who have internalized GTO principles so thoroughly they can intuitively make solver-approved decisions? The poker sites' policies rarely address these nuances.
Most concerning is how these rules create a system where the method of accessing poker knowledge, rather than the knowledge itself, becomes the determining factor in what's considered cheating. A player with a photographic memory who has studied charts extensively faces no penalties, while a player referencing the same information in spreadsheet form risks their account and funds.
The Nacho Barbero Contrast: Inconsistent Enforcement
Finn's case draws particular interest when compared to how ACR Poker handled a similar situation with former ambassador Jose "Nacho" Barbero. Earlier this year, Barbero posted an image showing GTO Wizard (a much more sophisticated solver tool) open in the background while playing on ACR.
Unlike WPT Global's immediate action against Finn, ACR initially defended Barbero. The site ultimately severed ties with him, but reportedly not because of the potential poker RTA use – rather, it was his subsequent comments during a livestream suggesting that ACR "wasn't trying" to stop cheating that led to his departure.
This inconsistency in enforcement raises serious questions about how poker sites prioritize rule violations. Is the severity determined by the sophistication of the tool used, the profile of the player involved, or simply how publicly the violation is exposed?
Terms of Service: Vague Language and Selective Enforcement
A closer examination of various poker sites' Terms of Service reveals troublingly vague language regarding external assistance. Most rooms prohibit "any software or external assistance that provides an unfair advantage" but few clearly define what constitutes "unfair" or how they determine when an advantage crosses that threshold.
The Public Nature of Enforcement
What's particularly notable about the Finn case is how publicly WPT Global handled the ban. While most sites quietly suspend accounts, WPT Global named the player directly in their announcement. This public approach to enforcement represents a shift in how some poker rooms are addressing integrity issues.
Patrick Leonard, who initially shared the screenshot that led to the ban, later deleted his post, writing that there was "no need to destroy him publicly" and hoping Finn would "learn from it."
The public nature of these incidents suggests that enforcement may be driven as much by public relations concerns as by consistent application of rules. When violations become visible to the community through news outlets and social media, sites face pressure to take decisive action, regardless of whether similar violations occur regularly without public exposure.
Moving Forward: The Poker RTA Challenge
As poker continues to evolve in the digital age, sites face growing challenges in defining and enforcing rules against external assistance. The line between legitimate study tools and prohibited aids becomes increasingly blurred as more sophisticated technology becomes available.
The varying approaches to enforcement across different platforms raise important questions about consistency and fairness in the online poker ecosystem. What constitutes an unfair advantage? How can rooms realistically enforce these rules? And how should the poker community balance competitive integrity with the realities of modern poker education?
One thing is clear: the debate around charts, solvers, and real-time assistance isn't going away anytime soon. As this incident demonstrates, even basic Excel spreadsheets can trigger significant consequences in today's increasingly vigilant online poker environment.