I Played like A SUPER NIT for 5,000 hands! The OMC Experiment (ep. 50)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- Welcome to ep.50 of my poker vlog Game Theory Impossible. This video covers the results of my most recent experiment in which I play a very tight strategy at no limit texas hold'm. In theory this strategy should be horrible but in practice I think it might just work! Watch and see how a simple strategy in which I fold 96% of starting hands attempts to beat the online microstakes!
Link to video with ALL hands: • full hand breakdowns f...
TIME STAMPS:
Experiment Premise: 0:46
Experiment Goal and Start: 3:55
Preflop Strategy: 4:10
Cbet Strategy 5:33
Bluff Strategy 11:06
Thesis Statement 13:20
Experiment Results! 14:20
Experiment Findings! 16:23
Hand Examples: 21:00
65o BB 21:49
AA BB 23:35
QQ BTN 24:43
TT BTN 26:09
KK BTN 26:54
QQ CO 27:12
QQ SB 29:41
TT SB 32:10
AKs LJ 32:56
JJ LJ 34:37
JJ LJ2 37:12
TT UTG 37:29
Conclusion: 39:42
I think if you fold every big blind you would have a -100 bb/100
Correct you would be -100 from the bb
It appears I made a mistake reading the BB results in the video suggesting the nit strat is even more potent than I thought
@@gametheoryimpossible oh it’s potent. It’s just not for everyone and you have to game select. Too many redliners and you will bleed a slow death
@@benjaminlopez9662 more like -25bb/100 in 6max. You don't have the bb every hand obviously
I think the stat is actually based on your BB hands so it is bb earned per 100BB played. I’m pretty sure it is specific to the position on Poker Tracker. I may be wrong though
I think this actually proves our biggest Winrate comes from post flop play, but is reinforced by quality of hands selected. The balance comes with selecting enough hands and spots to gain maximum post flop volume without being too loose.
I think you nailed it here ^
I think this is a better strategy for 8-9 man tables. In 6 handed you should probably expand your range to the top 5%
Lmao I love this comment so much.
@@gametheoryimpossible WHY?
@@lmrbeerbellyl I just love how we are having a serious discussion about poker where we are saying unironically we need to “expand” our range to 5% which still seems SO nitty. I think it’s funny because my traditional strategy I play which feels tight already is something like a 21%vpip.
@gametheoryimpossible well I think you're on to something. It would interesting to see how successful you could be playing less than 10% of hands in something like ACRs blitz poker where no one is really paying attention.
@lmrbeerbellyl I’ve been VPIPing 19-21% (30% steal and like 10% UTG) on Blitz with a 7-9% linear 3bet and have been doing well (smallish sample less than 10k hands). 10% or less might be tough on blitz because playing tight is all about getting payed and blitz people fold A LOT so it’s not as easy to get payed when you have it. So a tight Strat with enough hands to have bluffs seems to be the sweet spot.
I play a lot of micros, and all kind of ridiculous stuff happen, but if you have seen a 75s open jamming in 5000 hands, please consider yourself lucky. That does NOT happen often.
This is so eye opening
Glad to make the highlights! 😅
Ever inspiring 🙂↕️
Very interesting experiment. Thanks for doing that and look forward to the next one
30 seconds into the video and I already want to unlive myself. lmao
😂
I got a rash watching this
@ironmonkey1512 you liked it that much?
@@gametheoryimpossible
I like watching game theory stuff. 45 minutes definitely worth it so as to not play 5086 hands.
These days my "betting" is buying bitcoin or Tesla shares and waiting 5 years. NFA😢
I love the scientific approach taken here really cool to see strategy tested this way
Thank you 🙏
Unrealistic, OMCs check every draw that comes in and haven’t bluffed since ‘nam. 😂
Love these experiment videos, thanks for doing them!
😂 true
The open jam with 75s is probably someone who usually plays higher stakes waiting for a good seat to open up and are just trolling the lower stakes players. I do it so i know others do as well.
That could be possible I never thought of that before 🤔
Yes I do this all the time with my straddle😂
@themannodoubt8657 if you see me on ACR please support the channel and do rip it 😂
Solid video
Good info overall. I would say I haven't played with many OMCs that are bluff raising rivers with 6 high in the SB v BB hand.
Yeah I’ve never seen it 😂
But to keep myself sane I had to let myself play my BB when limped to
@@gametheoryimpossible I imagine it would be hard to straight up think like am omc without incorporating at least some of your experience and baseline strategy.
Even an OMC is going to play AQs on the button.
The true OMC would limp it. For simplicity I just did away with any limping range
1) 5k hands is an absolutely miniscule amount of hands, anything less than 100k is absolutely irrelevant for any statistics or results
2) The Net won/lost line doesn't matter when looking at graphs. The yellow EV adjusted line is the one that shows your performance
So my takeaway is, aside from Micros being soft and you are not being too hard punished for being a nit, is in high rake environments where you end up going multi-way more than you should because people are making -ev flats which cause your holding to lose EV due to the Rake, tightening up a lot is pretty good. That and of course all the weak players/Recs will just pay you off and never adapt to you. And the BB, due to the amount of limping, being able to win pots and of course win a lot of money when we have a premium is overcoming the massive amount of folding.
I think probably people are trying to squeeze out EV in spots a lot of the time with High rake with bad hands/bad implied odds. Of course more Regs in the pool + solid preflop players you will suddenly lose more and more, not to mention the distribution of cards + not getting paid off as much with value means you will go through long periods of times not playing hands.
So yeah analysis is correct - Micros = Bad. And lot of nitty players are successful in Poker, but extreme Nits are not successful when the game becomes tougher.
I don't get the logic on your sizing on the flop cbet. Why would you bet small when your range is completely destroying your opponent's?
That’s a good question. I generally try to use one size dependent on the flop texture. So on flips that are incredible for us where we have both an enormous range advantage and nut advantage I usually prefer a small size. This is because basically every part of my range is happy betting but not every part of my range is happy with a large bet (think about all the times I have second or third pair). Where as sometimes there is a flop where we have a larger concentration of nut hands but we don’t necessarily have the range advantage. Think boards like AJJ. These we want to bet because we do have a strong advantage. But I see no reason in betting large. If we have pocket aces we don’t get action because it’s hard for our opponent to have anything. If we have AK I don’t want to bet big because sometimes we just run in to a jack. If we have QQ we don’t want to bet big cause we don’t get action from worse…
But then you have boards like AK2. In a single raised pot we might over bet as the aggressor because our opponent never has sets aside from 22 and never has 2 pair aside from A2s. So we get to bet large because they are forced to defend with their top pairs and second pairs. We also don’t really bet for protection with our pocket pairs because we are either way ahead or way behind. This situation and others like it can warrant big bets. Otherwise it IS possible to have big bets on many flops if you are willing to split your range into multiple sizings. But if you add a subtle fork in the decision tree that early in the hand you end up with an exponentially complicated strategy likely to be full of leaks. So in conclusion you CAN absolutely bet big on many flops. I simply choose to have one size per flop. For example: if I raised CO and BB called and the flop was KQ5. I would bet 2/3pot when I cbet and check the rest of the time. Where as if the flop was K82 I would bet 1/3 with the hands I choose to Cbet.
This is the range Phil helmuth recommends in his book Play Poker Like the Pros. Surprised it’s not horrible. Good video
😂
Phil is honest and tells u how to win and the others tell you how to play so they can exploit u 😂
@TedJones-ye1ud it’s a Conspiracy!! 😂
I don't know if you're joking about the ranges in Helmuth's book being this tight, but Helmuth is famous for his tournament play. Tournament play is supposed to be tighter than ring game play.
That’s true in tournaments chips earned are less valuable than chips saved so your EV needs to be higher to get involved. But 3.5% can’t be right 😂
I needed this lol
What’s your VPIP?
Respect for grinding it out. Can only imagine how boring that was
😂 it’s more depressing than boring. It’s sad to see how uncreative you can be and manage a winning strategy
Very cool experiment! You seem to have played in an incredibly weak player pool. On Pokerstars, this would probably go terribly wrong.
I believe it! I fully expected it to have a substantial loss rate 😂 but ended up being surprised
Can you explain why the Flopsizing from the Aces wasnt good? the 3,4 or the the 33,60 or both u mean?
Hmm I’m not sure what you are referring to could you time stamps it?
@@gametheoryimpossible 32:05
@321meinstv2 oh I see. Yeah I see this mistake a LOT. Basically it puts almost none of our range in a tough spot. He also fails to get value from a LOT of our range that could call a proper size. Most of our range that he is ahead of will give him action vs a smaller bet but also not have much equity at all. In other words he does not benefit from making us fold hands that he beats. By the same token he makes it easy for us to play. We have easy calls when we are either ahead or have a fair amount of equity. So essentially jamming flop makes it so that he makes the pot the largest possible vs a range that will call that actually has more equity than AA. And if you ask me going all in and only getting action from a range that beats you is essentially what bluffing is meant for. And aces don’t make any sense as a bluff…
@@gametheoryimpossible hmm i understand your point, i only belive that this is a much more intresting spot in lot ways than it looks. at first, i am not a pro, so i only try to improve, but i also playing lot poker over 15 years so i mostly understand most of the thinkings from the good players when they explain and try understand why bad players do this and that.
And i write and think this, cause u played as a nutplayer and bring the topic. You explain with ranges, but ranges are capped to the type of players right? so most important thing would be, if you would change your playstyle when he is nutplayer like you or very aggressive?
In my Opinion this spot the enemy played the hand very good. Why? he know he has Aces, he will get a 3bet from you, and you playing in this session like a NUT. So your Range than very capped. His reraise make kind of most hands which 3-bet lead more likley from tighter player to a call, he scared putting tight player to a fold. cause first i thought he should raise little more to have a real potsize-bet in relation to his chips, but his price luring much more hands to call in my opinion and with Aces i think you want this szenario more. And your opinion is than in this boardstructure to always try get value from low combi draws?
With the Aces thinking of maybe when the board is good he will play slow, when board is terrible like it was he can shove, winning what is in the pot wasnt less in case u fold, and u still have some calinghands which he beats heavy, u also have callinghands which can get worse with a different turn, means u can have hands which call the all in complete after flop, but not after turn. He simply dont want give you a good price for this cards and put u there in tough spot with AQ and Flushdraws or pair and combidraw. Low bet only give u very good price to hit and more annyoying turns for him than for you.
So i belive he made maximum outcome possible. U say u call 100% in low board wihtout a and K so when board is good, he will win. means he win most likley with blocking two Aces the whole pot when board is already good and getting most likley ur QQs in. When he is also nutsplayer, i think QQ mostly not good
this board wasnt good for him, but still there only 3 hands which beat him with set and which would make sense. and there still hands which he beats.
Means in case u not trapping AA KK, u can have as a very tight player still AK, AQ, KQs, ,99s-QQ mostly and sometimes also tight players make move with 22s-88s j10s qjs and calling than the 4bet
Now i also would think, that this spot is extremly intresting in case of not hitting the Q and lowboard
I think this could be a spot where u could get ridd off the QQ, but this maybe only depends on how this player plays in general and which stats he has. But what i learn that some nutsplayers would never ever go all in or 4 bet like this with 99s or 1010s, but doing that to plan go all in on flop
So when he is himselfe a nutsplayer and play 3,3bb only his deluxerange, than really how to play QQ, cause vs a really real nutplayer in small stake there is only two hand in this szenario u beat and thats JJs or AK. So you prefer against this players still pre flop call, call lowboard? this not functioning for me or have a big QQ downsing vs this kind of enemy. mostly they not even 4bet AK and always have AA, KK thats why i am so in to that spot for when herofolding flop and herofolding pre
srry for long message haha
@321meinstv2 I see what you’re saying but there are some issues I see. Primarily the board. You mention that if the board was low then his big bet will “work.” But it wasn’t. And the fact is he should change his bet size based off of the board. And my range calling 4bets interacts with this board in such a way where I have the nuts (JJ-QQ and QJs), I have some very high equity draws JThh and AKhh, and I have some very marginal hands TT, AQ, and AJ. The reality is in a 4bet pot on this board vs a tight player AQ is an easy fold when they jam. When villain jams he makes us fold T9ssddcc, KQssddcc, AKssddcc, AQ, AJ, TT, 99, 88. This is a range that all together has very little equity vs aces. Does jamming make his life easier? Yes. Now he doesn’t have to worry about the 20% of turn cards that make him have to think about what to do. But that is not why we make choices in poker. We don’t make bet sizes to make it easy, we make them to make the highest possible EV. Jamming with aces folds out so much of our range that calls pf and still gets called by the part that is winning or has a fair amount of equity. The worst hand I probably call vs jam there is KK. That’s 6combos of hands. T9hh, AKhh, QJs, QQ, and JJ make up 11combos of hands that are winning or have 40-50% equity. That is a disaster. If he bet 1/4pot he gets called by T9s, JTs, KQs, AKs, TT, 99, AQ, AJ. That’s almost 50 combos that are in bad shape! Shouldn’t he bet to put those hands in a miserable spot? What I’m trying to say is this. It is totally fine for him to have aces on that flop and run out and get stacked by queens. The problem is that it’s only fine if he also stacks us or gets at least some value on that flop and runout when we have marginal hands. Essentially as played, he is only getting the money in when he is behind or only a slight favorite. If he changed his bet size he could bet small and get called by almost 50ckmbos of hands that have little chance to improve.
A whole video to prove what Rounders already taught us :)
Awesome video bro
Thank you 🙏
Love it lmao. I have a question though, I play 9 max cash on GG, 200bb stacks - it has a 0.4bb ante which is hard to play because everyone is quite loose, so my redline is just getting destroyed. What's your thoughts for how I can achieve a solid win rate playing them? I can barely find any solid info about them.
Hmm that’s a good question. I have nearly no experience in ante games. Is this an ante with preflop action or ante straight to the flop? Either way 200bb stacks usually means we have to play a lot more cautiously and rely more heavily on value blocking our opponents for our bluffs.
@@gametheoryimpossible I'm not sure exactly what you mean by ante straight to the flop, sorry.
4.6bbs in the pot pre flop - everything else exactly the same - hope that helps.
The players in these games are mostly passive - mostly tight passives and loose passives.
I find myself just not getting enough value hands to punish them enough to profit from the blinds and ante + high rake.
I would imagine one option would be to raise larger PF because the pot is so large already. This would however in turn mean you’d have to play a little tighter.
Additionally you could develop some limping strategies especially from the SB since we are given an insanely good price.
If you wanted to expand your range and not raise so large PF I imagine including good implied odds hands is really important like K3s and even bad suited queens as well as the more obvious suited connectors. I think giving ourselves more hands that hit the nuts could be an option given how deep the game plays. Again I’m definitely a novice in this format so idk 🤷♂️. Sounds like potentially a great game though. Generally people will not play enough hands in ante games. But we might opt to do the same however we could make up for it by raising large and still getting action by weak hands held by bad players.
Plus if we raise larger then it’s easier to get value on later streets because the slight difference of pot size on the flop gets compounded
@gametheoryimpossible thank you so much for answering, I'll try doing this for sure. I usually just raise to 3bb and get a bunch of calls so makes it hard to play. I'll try bigger sizes while also tightening up a little bit. Thanks again.
I kinda feel like the fact you lost being a nit at 6max fundamentally proves that raw hand value alone is not enough to beat this game, and the positive results at FR was likely just an upswing. It'd be like trying to play chess with zero consideration for your opponents strategy, it just doesnt work.
@@ticenits1926 but we were actually positive at 6max for this experiment where I played 3.5% of hands.. I think you’re referring to the previous results where I played a larger less defined range
@@gametheoryimpossible ah my bad sorry, got mixed up
That makes sense
What are you talking about? He showed the graph he was up like 500 in 5k hands
This was almost purposely bad, the folds showcased in the intro other than the AQs told are preposterous. I'll have to go see the other video but it seems like it would make sense to try being super nitty but not skip on obviously profitable spots like all those missed opens.
don't OMCs also limp sometimes and continue if they flop the nuts
Yes they do. I thought it would introduce too many variables for a short experiment so I just avoided limping
@24:20 least setup - online poker hand
lol it is always possible 🫠 I definitely don’t fully trust online poker which is why I only play low stakes for practice really and play live for money
Impossible to conclude anything of the basis of a 5k sample.
Nightwing plays poker?
Interesting. Tight is right. Against better players this strategy will be sussed out. You will be exploited by players coming in more often, then folding to your raises suspecting that you only play strong hands.
Absolutely. And full disclosure I ran these 5,000 hands on my same account where I have played my more LAG style so some of even my more competent opponents might have had HUD stats on me that helped me get payed.
good video
love the concept, 42 min is waaaaay to long of a video though.
What about 41min?
I wish I could play online poker in the US
👀
U can make a ton of money playing microstakes❤
True but we also have to consider the hourly rate. And it will just never be high enough to warrant playing for actual income
15" POKER HAAAAARRRRDDD
Very good video kid. Thank you (new subscriber)
Thank you welcome to the journey!
OMC's dont fold most of these hands in the opening. That AQs is a call from an OMC. 99 Call. AJo Call. Then when they hit big. They just call. Never raise. Just call and then if they get checked to then they will bet. Usually a really stupid amount. Stupid big or stupid small. But stupid either way.
People that make a living playing poker play tighter than the everyday player
The vast majority of them. There are definitely some especially live who VPIP more than theoretically you should and have good win rates. It’s always dependent on player pool and personal strengths
Homey I’m like 5 minutes in and you’ve yet to explain what NIT or OMC means.
0:57
OMC stands for old man coffee. The kind of old man that waits around sipping on coffee all day waiting for aces.
@@gametheoryimpossible thank you
If you want to play like OMC, you have to understand how OMC thinks, at which you fail
Please enlighten me
9:18 why arent u scared that ur opponent could have a 9x ?
It’s not impossible for villain to have a nine. Just very unlikely. When he opens from LJ and calls a 3bet OOP that limits him to suited connectors, pocket 99, and A9s for nines. On the flop vs my Cbet players will often raise 98s 2 pair. Even if he slow plays every street and has all the combos of 98s and 99. Because of the card removal of the runout he only has 2combos of 98, 2combos of T9s, and 1 combo of A9s. Meanwhile he has 8combos of KJ, 8combos of AQ, 3 combos of QJs.
@@gametheoryimpossible
Perfect answer
How is 5k hands even a video or experiment. You could win in 5k hands going all in every hand
Now that could be an interesting experiment!
its one guy how many hands did you want him to play for one videk
🙏
No omc is this tight. The range construction just doesn't make sense based on how real world omcs play
I played with this guy last night lol. Literally flatting AKs on the CO vs a HJ raise. The rest of the time he was folding. Then he 3bet twice. Both times he had KK+. Over 3 hrs aside from blinds those were the only hands I saw him VPip
@@gametheoryimpossible fair enough, just seems hard to believe anyone would fail to open AQs from the button
Yeah you don’t see that. You do see people Limp AQ from the button though which is insane 😂
I figure for the most controlled results I’d just avoid any limping at all and went with the 3.5%. I think next one I will expand to include more broadway holdings
@@gametheoryimpossible I wonder what kind of circumstances would make this strategy most profitable/ least unprofitable. Or what the best minor tweaks would be to mostly play the style but slightly deviate. I love the idea of actually doing these experiments.
Yeah the key to any experiment is not having too many variables. So making a specific addition or deviation moving forward should give us the most affirming understanding. The main issue is variance and sample. Really I need to get a larger sample to derive significant meaning. But alas I am also trying to employ my real poker strategy and log hours playing actual poker too 😂 so the process is slow
On which plattform was this?
ACR
@@gametheoryimpossible Thx bro
Too easy to fix the vote in the battle ground states. Karmala is our future unless the higher powers of the air intercede.
You might be fooling some of the public but most of us are on to you (the machine) and the bit comments or paid actors.
Vote TRUMP
What stakes is this? Micro is a bit vague.
For this specific experiment I was playing NL 2 and NL 5
so, in micros, avoid super high rake and play ultra nitty? who wudda thunk it??
Something everyone knows mixed with your non existant personality just makes me want to watch and listen so much more
Don’t forget to like and subscribe ☺️
@@gametheoryimpossible bros just mad ur teaching more micro players they can be nitty profitably
😂this comment is so brutal yet so funny. My boy does have a point got to work on how you talk and present yourself.