On 9th September Jonathan Little posted on Twitter that he had been banned by America's Card Room, tweeting ACR CEO Phil Nagy "Hi Phil, It seems my account has suddenly been banned. I was not told why I was banned. I tried to log in to cash out my funds but it is not letting me. Is it because I said ACR is not as safe as a bank? I always spoke highly of your game volume and marketing skills." to which Phil replied "It’s one thing if you’re going to treat WPN like some side chick. But I’ll be damned if I’m going to give you the privilege of getting to fuck me on the daily if you’re going to punch me in the head while doing it. JonathanLittle".
Now to give some context, Little has never been shy in telling his thousands of followers that he doesn't advocate anyone playing on any unlicenced/unregulated poker sites including ACR. The question is; are ACR within their rights to ban Little and did they make the right decision. Let's consider some of the facts:
Little has a large social media following, streaming a live session of "A Little Coffee" 3 times a week on YouTube, Twitch, Facebook and Instagram and answers all sorts of questions from his fans. I personally have seen some form of the question "where do you recommend playing online poker if you live in America?" more than 100 times and Little would always respond with something along the lines of, he would not recommend any unlicensed/ unregulated site because history shows that eventually they get shut down or go bust and at worst the sites customers would lose their money and at best it will take months for them to get their money back. Although when pushed he would say that ACR was probably the best of them. Little even did a podcast with his lawyer and Gaming Attorney, Mac VerStandig where they discuss the legality of playing online poker in the USA and VerStandig makes it quite clear that it is not legal to play on these unlicensed/unregulated sites, even in the states of Nevada, New Jersey and Delaware, where online poker is legal, although he also states that no one has ever been prosecuted for playing on these sites. He also states that if the site were to go down and you have money on that site, there is no legal recourse if the site is based outside of the USA - note that ACR is based in Costa Rica. So that means if ACR went down tomorrow and you had your whole life's worth on the site, you would have no legal case to help to retrieve that money. You would essentially be relying on the site to honour their agreement to return your money. If you want to watch the interview in full click the link below.
At the start of the Coronavirus pandemic, Little started streaming live poker sessions, multi-tabling a dozen or more tournaments at a time on ACR. Many of his followers would ask why he was playing on ACR when he did not recommend others play on there and he would consistently state that he still wouldn't recommend ACR, but that of all the sites available to Americans, ACR was probably the best option. He also suggested that if you were going to play on ACR, or any unlicensed/unregulated site that you keep no more than one day's worth of buy-ins on the site. He also added a banner at the bottom of his stream stating "Do NOT play on illegal/unlicensed/unregulated gambling sites with money you care about" to avoid answering the same question repeatedly throughout his streams (not that it stopped his followers asking 100 times per stream). Every stream Little's followers would ask the same questions; "is it safe, is it rigged, are there bots, etc., etc." and Little would answer in much the same way every time with "don't keep more than a days buy-ins on the site", "the actual site is not rigged in terms of the RNG (Random Number Generator), but there probably are bots and collusion on the site". Little still stands by his comments and says he is not going to lie to his students and followers when his job is to teach them is all aspects of poker and recommending a site that he does not believe to be 100% safe would
There would also be times though where Little would appear to contradict himself making comments about not getting good run outs, never hitting or never winning a flip against a shill, or getting "Nagy'd" when getting sucked out on. When he lost a large post a clip of Maggie Simpson sucking a dummy would appear as a reference to Nagy sucking out on him. Little has since stated on Twitter and various poker forums that this was clearly a joke and just part of his attempt to make the stream fun and entertaining for his fans.
It appears though, that the straw that broke the camels back was when an ACR shill stated that ACR was safer than a bank, which Little then said that it was not and made it clear that people should not keep substantial money on ACR or any unregulated site. The rest, as they say is history; ACR banned Little and Twitter exploded with strong opinions from both sides. One important point worth making is that Little has confirmed that ACR did return the funds he had on the site which Little said was around $19,000USD.
So, who, if anyone, was out of line?
Well, I think first of all as a business, you are entitled to run your company as you see fit, provided it is legal. Nagy can choose who plays on his site and Little and choose what to post in his content, but does that make it right?
Little regularly states that his goal is to make all of his students the best and most profitable poker players they can be and part of that is making sure they protect their hard earned bankrolls. Warning players about unlicensed/unregulated sites falls into that category, in the same way you wouldn't leave your money in an unlicensed bank, why would you leave your money in an unlicensed poker site, for me that makes perfect sense. Little has thousands, maybe 10's of thousands of followers through his poker coaching website, Twitch, YouTube, Twitter and Instagram. What would happen to his reputation if he recommended they all play on these sites and then they all got shut down? It would be in tatters and the years of hard work in building up a reputation for being one of the best coaches today would be washed away.
What about his comments about bad run outs against the ACR shills and getting Nagy'd? Well, for me this is simply banter. Anyone who has spent any time watching Little stream poker, or his A Little Coffee show should know that he has a very dry, deadpan sense of humour. As I said earlier, he regularly makes it quite clear he doesn't think ACR is rigged in the sense that the RGN is not legitimate, or somehow favours certain players.
Was he right to say that ACR is not as safe as a bank. I think it is pretty obvious ACR is not as safe as a bank. I refer you back to the interview with Mac VerStandig - if ACR went down, you would have no legal case to help to retrieve that money - so no, clearly it is not as safe as a bank. Did Little need to say it? I think it's a reasonable stance to take that he feels compelled to warn his students of the pitfalls of certain sites. His students trust him to provide good sound poker advice and that isn't just limited to how to react when someone 3-bet shoves you on the river.
What about Phil Nagy and ACR? As I said, any business owner can make whatever business decision they want, within the law. ACR's T's&C's state they can ban anyone for any reason at any time and can confiscate any funds in your account at the time of banning something that Little himself has acknowledged. So from that perspective Nagy hasn't done anything wrong; he has acted within the terms of service and returned Little's funds, which technically he did not have to do, however, I think it would have been a PR disaster if ACR had withheld the funds as this would have just re-enforced Little's claims that your money is not safe if ACR can and will ban you without warning and take your money, without you breaking their terms.
OK, so Nagy and ACR acted within their terms, but should they have banned him? I personally would not have banned Little, but warned him that he was risking getting banned (maybe they already did that) if he continued making disparaging comments. However, I think the most important thing is that they returned Little's bankroll. Of course, Nagy knows that if he kept it, Little would have gone to town on it telling all his students and the wider poker world that ACR have just proved him right, but all the same, they made the right call in that regard.
So who came out of this better or worse? The way I see it is that Jonathan Little gained a lot of credibility from his existing followers and gained a few more followers along the way thanks to this little skirmish. Sure, some people who appear to watch his streams said they weren't surprised, but most seemed to think ACR's reaction was heavy handed and only served to prove Little right. Of course there were plenty of people that sided with Nagy and ACR in a more militant manner, thinking it should have happened long before and that it was nothing less that he deserved. ACR on the other hand, managed alienate players, who might not necessarily follow Little, but are appalled that ACR have arbitrarily banned a player purely for talking them down a bit on stream. Also, even though he was regularly making disparaging comments, his live streams attracted hundreds of live viewers effectively promoting ACR for free at the same time. Overall, it feels like Jonathan Little has probably come out slightly on top; his loyal fan base remains loyal and probably swelled in their ranks slightly. He had his money returned and has since streamed playing on other unlicensed/unregulated sites (he's not too keen on them either), while ACR have probably lost a few customers, not to mention the approximate $10,000 in rake that Little generated for them since April on his own. And it's not like banning him is suddenly going to stop him from saying anything bad about their site, so for me, ACR probably lose out a little, but I'm not sure that really matters.
So in conclusion: did Jonathan Little do anything wrong? If sharing your opinion about a product is wrong, why do sites like Amazon allow you to leave reviews? Everyone is entitled to their opinion and everyone else has to decide if they want to listen and agree with it or not. Did ACR do anything wrong? I don't think so; they are entitled to decide who does or does not play on their site and they acted within their Terms and Conditions. They returned Little's money, which for me gains them a bit of credit, although, if they'd held onto it, I think it would have proven to be a huge mistake. I do feel like the decision was made for personal reasons rather than business reasons, with Nagy taking Little's comments to heart and hitting back in the only way he really had at his disposal.
I hope you have enjoyed my latest blog. I'd love to hear your thoughts and opinions on the situation and if you think ACR will rescind the ban at any point.
Matt Burns