Poker solvers have become standard study tools, and almost every serious player uses one away from the table to understand game-theory-optimal frequencies. The moment that same tool — or any external help — gets consulted during a live hand, it crosses into Real-Time Assistance, and every major poker site treats that as cheating rather than a gray area.
Smart Bet Insider tracks platform policy on tools, trackers, and software the same way it tracks legislation and club-app agent risk — because “is this allowed” questions in poker are rarely as simple as a headline yes or no. This guide explains exactly what counts as RTA, which sites ban it, how detection actually works in 2026, and where the real boundary sits between legitimate study and prohibited assistance.
What RTA Actually Means
Real-Time Assistance refers to the use of software tools or external aids that provide players with optimal decisions during live online poker games. That’s a broader definition than most players assume — it doesn’t just mean a bot playing for you, it covers any outside help consulted while a hand is actually live.
Charts and Spreadsheets Count Too
Simple push-fold tables and ICM charts are increasingly viewed as RTA when consulted mid-hand, even though many players assume static reference material is fundamentally different from a running solver. If a site’s game integrity team can conclude a chart influenced a live decision, the account is at risk regardless of whether the material was a sophisticated solver or a basic spreadsheet.
Build an RTA Boundary Matrix, Not a Simple “Banned” Label
Saying a poker site “bans RTA” leaves out the distinction players actually need: when a tool can be used and what it does while the poker client is running. PokerStars, for example, divides third-party tools into three categories: permitted at all times, prohibited at all times, and tools permitted for study but prohibited while its software is open. That last category includes advanced equity calculators, range-versus-range simulators, ICM/Nash programs, and reference material that goes beyond basic starting-hand charts.
| Tool / Use Case | Before Session | During Play | After Session |
| Solver | Study | Prohibited | Study |
| Preflop chart | Study | Site-dependent | Study |
| ICM calculator | Study | Restricted on some sites | Study |
| HUD | Site-dependent | Site-dependent | Analysis |
| Hand-history tracker | Generally permitted | Site-dependent | Analysis |
| AI assistant | Depends on policy | RTA if it advises decisions | Depends on policy |
| Automation | Generally restricted | Prohibited | N/A |
The key distinction is that the same software can move from legitimate study tool to prohibited assistance depending purely on timing and functionality. A solver used to analyze yesterday’s hands is fundamentally different from a program calculating a range-versus-range decision while the client is open — PokerStars’ terms specifically prohibit tools that provide real-time advice, reduce a player’s decision-making requirement, or perform advanced calculations during gameplay.
That also means enforcement isn’t simply about catching someone with a solver installed. PokerStars states its integrity systems analyze software, behavioral, and gameplay data — including hundreds of decisions and actions — while investigations can involve additional review beyond automated flagging. The practical rule worth internalizing: don’t ask only “is this tool banned?” Ask “is this tool permitted on this site, with the client open, for this specific function?” That’s where the real RTA boundary sits.
Manual vs. Automatic RTA Tools
Not all RTA tools work the same way, and the distinction matters for understanding both the rules and how sites catch violations. Manual input tools are ones players use to solve specific hands in real time and get GTO outputs, while automatic input tools are built specifically to pick up hands automatically in the background and generate outputs without the player doing any manual work at all.
Why the Distinction Matters for Enforcement
Both static and manual input tools are genuinely useful for learning when used away from the table, and using them while not playing is considered legitimate study. Using either category during live play, however, is treated as cheating by the vast majority of poker rooms, with automatic tools generally viewed as the more severe violation since they’re purpose-built for real-time cheating rather than adapted from a study tool.
Where Major Sites Stand on RTA
Every major operator prohibits RTA outright, but the specific wording and enforcement mechanisms differ by platform.
| Site | RTA Policy | Enforcement Approach |
| PokerStars | Prohibits tools providing real-time advice or playing without human intervention | Pattern detection, hand history review |
| GGPoker | Decisions must be made free of external assistance | Bans and fund confiscation for violations |
| CoinPoker | RTA banned; automatic detection tools deployed | Automated detection plus manual anti-cheating team |
| Winning Poker Network | RTA prohibited under terms of service | Behavioral and pattern-based review |
| Regulated U.S. sites | RTA and bot use prohibited | Device checks, account investigations |
PokerStars and GGPoker: The Two Biggest Enforcers
All major online poker sites, including PokerStars and GGPoker, have banned RTA use outright, with no ambiguity in either platform’s terms. GGPoker’s policy specifically states that decisions at the table should be made free of external assistance, and lists potential penalties for RTA or bot breaches including permanent bans and confiscation of funds.
CoinPoker’s Two-Pronged Approach
CoinPoker has been notably aggressive about RTA specifically, building automatic RTA detection tools while also maintaining a manual anti-cheating team to catch cases automated systems miss. That combination — algorithmic flagging backed by human review — has become the standard approach across most major operators rather than relying on one detection method alone.
How Sites Actually Detect RTA
Detection has moved well beyond simply checking what software is installed on a player’s machine, since most RTA use happens through separate devices or screens a site has no direct access to. Instead, operators rely heavily on behavioral pattern analysis — looking at how a player’s actual decisions compare to statistically expected human play over a large enough sample.
Timing Is One of the Biggest Tells
Humans act quickly on easy folds and slowly on genuine tank decisions, but RTA users often show a consistent delay — commonly cited around three to five seconds — on nearly every action, because they’re waiting for a solver to generate an answer regardless of how trivial the decision actually is. That flattened, consistent timing pattern is one of the more reliable behavioral signals investigators look for, since it doesn’t match how humans naturally vary their decision speed based on difficulty.
Solver Correlation Is the Other Major Signal
Beyond timing, what’s consistently striking to investigators reviewing flagged hand histories is how detectable unusual patterns become at scale — plays that deviate slightly too often from exploitable human tendencies, with sizing and timing that align almost perfectly with solver outputs. Sites are also able to pull historical solver data and cross-reference whether a player solved for the exact hands they played, turning a player’s own study history into evidence against them.
It’s Described as an Arms Race for a Reason
The result is an ongoing arms race between cheaters and operators, and by most accounts operators have gotten meaningfully better at winning it heading into 2026. Most anti-RTA systems rely on pattern recognition rather than single-hand analysis, meaning players are generally caught only after using RTA continually over an extended period — a single suspicious hand rarely triggers action on its own, but a consistent pattern across hundreds or thousands of hands does.
Where the Actual Line Sits
The clearest way to think about the boundary is timing relative to the hand, not the tool itself. A solver used before or after a session — to study ranges, review a specific spot, or build a strategy — is universally accepted as legitimate training. The same solver consulted while a hand is still live crosses directly into banned territory, regardless of how the software is marketed or what else it’s capable of.
The Same Logic Applies to Trackers and HUDs
This mirrors how HUD policy works across most rooms — a tool that displays only your own historical stats during play is generally treated differently from one that pulls live opponent data or offers decision suggestions mid-hand. A safe approach in 2026 is using only built-in or specifically approved site stats during play, avoiding third-party overlays on any room with ambiguous rules, and never touching datamined databases regardless of the room’s HUD policy.
Even Negotiated Exceptions Exist at the Margins
The boundary isn’t always perfectly rigid in every context — when two high-stakes players negotiated terms for a heads-up match in 2020, they explicitly agreed preflop charts were acceptable to use during play, showing that some private, negotiated exceptions can exist outside a standard site’s normal terms. That kind of carve-out is the exception rather than the rule, and it doesn’t apply to standard cash games or tournaments on any regulated platform.
What This Means for Your Own Setup
The safest practical approach is keeping every solver, chart, and study tool strictly confined to pre- and post-session work, never open or consulted while a hand is live, regardless of how minor the assistance might seem. Tracking software for post-game analysis carries none of the risk that live-session use does, since offline review doesn’t influence any decision made during an actual hand.
Smart Bet Insider keeps tabs on how platform tool policies evolve, since RTA enforcement — like HUD policy before it — tends to tighten over time as detection technology improves rather than loosen. Before assuming a tool is safe because it’s marketed as a “study aid,” it’s worth running it through the boundary matrix above to confirm whether a room’s terms distinguish based on timing, data source, or both.
FAQs
What exactly counts as Real-Time Assistance in poker?
RTA is any outside software, tool, or reference material that influences a decision while a hand is actually live, including solvers, charts, spreadsheets, or automated hand-analysis tools. It doesn’t matter whether the tool is sophisticated software or a simple printed chart — consulting it mid-hand is what triggers the violation.
Are poker solvers themselves banned?
No — solvers are widely considered legitimate and valuable study tools when used away from the table to prepare and learn game-theory-optimal strategy. The prohibition applies specifically to consulting a solver, or any RTA tool, during live play, not to owning or studying with one beforehand.
How does PokerStars categorize third-party tools?
PokerStars sorts tools into three groups: permitted at all times, prohibited at all times, and permitted for study but prohibited while the client is open — the last category covering advanced equity calculators, range-versus-range simulators, and ICM/Nash programs. That middle category is where most confusion happens, since the same tool is legal offline and a violation the moment the poker client is running.
How do poker sites actually detect RTA use?
Detection relies heavily on behavioral pattern analysis — unusually consistent decision timing, betting patterns that align too closely with solver outputs, and historical solver-usage data cross-referenced against hands actually played. PokerStars specifically notes its integrity systems analyze software, behavioral, and gameplay data across hundreds of decisions rather than flagging a single hand.
What happens if a site catches someone using RTA?
Consequences typically include permanent account bans and confiscation of funds, with GGPoker and other major operators explicitly listing these penalties in their terms of service. Because most detection relies on patterns built over time, sustained RTA use is far more likely to trigger enforcement than a single instance.
Is there a difference between manual and automatic RTA tools?
Yes — manual input tools require a player to actively solve a specific hand during play, while automatic tools are built to pick up hands and generate outputs in the background without direct player action. Automatic tools are generally viewed as the more severe violation since they’re purpose-built for real-time cheating rather than adapted from legitimate study software.
Are ICM charts or push-fold tables considered RTA?
Increasingly, yes — many sites now treat any static reference material consulted mid-hand as RTA, not just dynamic solver software. If a site’s integrity team concludes a chart or spreadsheet influenced a live decision, it’s treated the same as using a running solver during the hand.