'This Guy’s a Clown': Nicky P Blasts Alan Keating’s Poker Tournament Take
Editor's Note: Due to the use of AI-generated content, the WSOP has removed all episodes of No Limit from YouTube.
Poker loudmouth Nicholas Palma had some choice words for Alan Keating after Episode 5 of NO LIMIT, the new poker documentary built around the 2024 WSOP Paradise Super Main Event.
Keating’s comments on poker tournaments have stirred a debate, and Palma, a true tournament grinder, was quick to fire back at what the high-stakes cash game regular had to say.
Keating’s Hot Take Sparks Palma Tirade
"I don’t think tournament poker is poker."
Keating delivered one of the documentary’s spiciest moments so far, when asked about his views on tournament poker compared to playing cash games.
“They’re [tournament players] going to hate me,” he grinned. “I want to be gracious, but I would compare it like chess and checkers. Tournaments are more like checkers to me.”
He doubled down a moment later. “I don’t think tournament poker is the most pure form of poker. I don’t think tournament poker is poker. It’s horrible, it’s a lottery. For me, poker at its purest is playing for irresponsible sums of money.”
Keating wrapped it up with one more jab. “I hate tournaments, there’s nothing I like about them. I don’t know why I’m here.”
The comments prompted Palma to unload on Keating in a lengthy tirade on X, attacking both the comparison and Keating’s place in high-stakes games.
"I know that if he comes to the local $2/$5 game he gets wiped out versus people with half decent poker knowledge"
“Tournaments, you have to play the best to be the best and you can’t table select. The cash games he plays, a player with even half a brain isn’t allowed to play because the people are all whales." the WSOP bracelet winner said on Keating’s chess and checkers comparison.
"This guy can only beat a whale. Anyone with half decent poker knowledge destroys this guy in poker. He’d be living on the street if he needed to win money in poker and play versus good players. He gets in games you can’t even play because he’s such a fish. It’s comical hearing a clown like this on a poker documentary about tournaments talk like this."
"Purest form of poker? Don’t make me f****ing laugh.”
“Tournaments are checkers, cash games are chess when you can game select like this. We can’t even get in the games you play in." Palma continued.
"No one with half a brain gets to play in the games you [Keating] play in. They only let you in because you’re a whale yourself."
He went even further, calling Keating “a real clown,” adding: “I know that if he comes to the local $2/$5 game he gets wiped out versus people with half decent poker knowledge. To have this guy in a tournament documentary sh***ing on tournaments when he is brainless and lucky to have made money however he has made money, it is comical.”
“If I got to play in the games this guy got to play in everyday, I’d be sleeping on money.
“Guy’s acting like he made his money from poker. If he has made money from poker, it’s from business people or famous celebrities that do not know how to play poker. Purest form of poker? Don’t make me f****ing laugh.”
Breaking Down Both Sides
The debate ignited by Keating and Palma is one poker has wrestled with for years. What is the “purest” form of poker? Are tournaments and cash games really comparable, or are they two different skill sets built for different types of players?
And just as importantly, are Keating’s criticisms of tournaments any more valid than Palma’s accusations that Keating only thrives because he can game select soft, invitation-only lineups? There is plenty to unpack on both sides of the coin.
Tournaments: Purity or Deep Pockets?
Many players would still argue that tournaments represent the purest form of poker. That idea dates back to the days when freezeouts were the norm and not the exception. Back then, everyone had one bullet and you either ran it up or you didn’t. Nowadays, unlimited reentry is standard at almost every stop. Even poker commentator Norman Chad has criticized how reentry formats reward players with the deepest pockets, giving them a natural edge over someone who might be more skilled but does not have the bankroll to fire multiple bullets.
There are still a few holdouts. The WSOP Main Event and all $10,000 WSOP Championship events remain freezeouts, and EPT Main Events are mostly single reentry. But the broader trend is clear in that modern poker gravitates toward larger prize pools, and operators follow that demand. The market wants big guarantees, big fields and big money, and reentries are the engine that gets them there.
Cash Games: A Different Kind of “Pure”
On the other side, there is a strong case that cash games are poker in its most natural form. You sit down with a set amount of money, battle whoever is across the table and get up whenever you want. For many players, this is how poker began: nickels and dimes around a kitchen table with friends and family. What is more “pure” than that?
But then, are cash games the most pure when you can run a board, turn or river multiple times? Was No Limit Hold'em created so that two players could chop a pot? Probably not.
Why Chess vs Checkers Doesn’t Land
Keating’s chess and checkers comparison, while provocative, probably falls short when you consider the complexity of tournament poker. Stack depths change constantly, the number of hands you can play per position shifts as blinds rise and ICM pressure reshapes strategy at every stage. Entire career paths are built on mastering tournament nodes and game trees. Calling that “checkers” ignores just how technical and studied today’s elite MTT landscape really is.
That does not mean cash games lack depth. The strategic battle in a deep-stacked cash lineup is its own rich ecosystem. But writing off tournaments as a “lottery” oversimplifies a format that demands a different kind of edge.
Daniel Negreanu sided with Palma, saying "it’s a bit disingenuous to suggest that tourneys are checkers to chess, when the cash games he plays are tiddlywinks compared to the skill level required to beat the top dogs."
The Game Selection Argument
One of Palma’s main criticisms was Keating’s ability to game select. To be fair, it is a luxury any professional would take if given the option. High-stakes private games are now a major part of the poker economy, and getting into them often has little to do with pure skill. Personality, entertainment value, networking and reputation all matter.
Is it frustrating for grinders who cannot access those games? Absolutely. But if your goal is to make money in poker, branding yourself into soft or lucrative lineups is part of the modern job description. Beginners are told from day one to “play in games you can beat.” For professionals, that message does not suddenly stop applying at nosebleed stakes.
Whether this trend is good or bad for poker’s long-term ecosystem is a much bigger discussion.
Is Keating Really a Whale?
Palma’s tirade took several shots at Keating’s skill level, but the definition of “poker skill” is not as simple as playing solver-approved lines. Keating has built a persona that celebrities, athletes and wealthy amateurs genuinely enjoy playing with. Neymar, Chris Eubank Jr and others have shared tables with him because he brings an atmosphere people want to be part of. That has opened doors to some extremely profitable lineups.
Is Keating the most theoretically sound player? No. Is he a GTO Wizard? Of course not. But that does not mean he lacks poker ability. Many pros recall Keating grinding mid-stakes Las Vegas games during his ascent, and he has made strong reads in spots where elite players have second-guessed themselves. His recent hero call against Doug Polk on High Stakes Poker is a prime example. Polk is one of the best heads-up players in history and an elite tournament mind. Making a correct high-pressure decision against him is not something a “brainless” player does.
Keating has also obviously made smart investments that now allow him to comfortably buy into huge games, but you do not survive in those circles for as long as he has without real poker IQ.
Palma’s Passion and Persona
Palma, meanwhile, is fiercely competitive and wears his heart on his sleeve. He has more than $3 million in tournament earnings and cares deeply about the game.
That passion can tilt into volatility, like during his last Hustler Casino Live appearance, where he clashed with regulars after calling the table “bums” and sparring with Mariano. It is fair to ask whether that same fire sometimes keeps him out of certain private lineups.
So Who Is Right?
Maybe the real answer is that both players are arguing from valid but incomplete viewpoints. If you want trophies, accolades and a legacy people can track on Hendon Mob, tournaments are the path. If you want to maximise income with the least variance, cash games are the logical choice.
Professional poker means making a living from the game, and players choose the format and the games that best achieves that. Poker is not one size fits all. It never has been.
