Odd phenomenon - many very tight Omaha/8 players = bad winrates.

[SweetLuckyMe]

I've noticed that once a player gets so tight that they play less than about 22% of their starting hands it seems impossible for them to do better than a 1BB/100 loser. I have zero players in my database playing under 22% VPIP with a positive winrate - quite a few of them with over 10,000 hands each.

Here's one fellow in particular. There are a handfull with very similar numbers.

VPIP 16.2
PFR 5.8
AF 1.94
WTSD 30.19
WSD 61.52
Winrate -4.58
# hands in database 17,060
I've monitored his winrate over the past 5k hands and it's been steadily hovering between -3.5BB/100 and -5BB/100

He seems like a solid, tight aggressive player. What's with the lousy winrate? The showdown numbers are good, but what's with the winrate?

I know all too well about variance, and I realize that even 20k hands is a very small sample size, but the trend is interesting. None of the very tight players seem to make money. Anyone have any insite?

The problem with these type players is that they are very easy to read and be taken off hands when they don't have the nuts or close to it. I look for these people when I play. I assume your talking LO8 BTW. I usually play HU or 6 max so my play continually changes, but playing that rediculously tight you just can't make money. I would define solid more as a winning LAG player really in LO* or PLO8.

[killerfizh]

I was one of those TAG Omaha/8 nits. The reason I played that way was because "the book said to play this way".

I'm not 100% sure why I didn't win, but I assume its because of problems adjusting to the LAG/Maniacs. It's also easy to go on tilt when you get run over by LAGs when playing that tight.

To really win you need gears!!!! You will get paif off more, and actually make money withour having a hand. I wouldn't suggest you bluff too often in the lower limits though.

[SweetLuckyMe]

[ QUOTE ]
I assume your talking LO8 BTW.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes, limit Omaha/8.

[Fiasco]

well, Ive played a LOT less LO8 than you have im sure. I dont have a single player in my database that Ive played 10k hands with at LO8.

However

I do have some players who are winners at LO8 with VPIP < 22. Most of them over a couple hundred hands. Almost all of these winners were at .50/1. However, Ive got one player named papito98 at party who was very tight and was a solid winner in the 10/20 and 15/30 games.

Also

Im 2.1 PTBB/100 at the pokerroom .5/1 LO8 with VPIP 23.32 over 13.5k hands. So theres almost a counterexample.

Also 1.1 PTBB/100 at the party .5/1 with VPIP 20.73 over 2.5k hands.

I do think your findings are interesting though. I think the question becomes: is having a VPIP over 22% really going to improve your game that much, or do players who are tight preflop just experience problems playing the game postflop. And are these problems based on the fact that there hand is transparent, or is it just that nits suck at LO8?

[SweetLuckyMe]

[ QUOTE ]
I do have some players who are winners at LO8 with VPIP < 22. Most of them over a couple hundred hands. Almost all of these winners were at .50/1

[/ QUOTE ] That's an alarmingly small sample size - virtually insignificant. 10k is even borderling insignificant, really.

[ QUOTE ]
Im 2.1 PTBB/100 at the pokerroom .5/1 LO8 with VPIP 23.32 over 13.5k hands. So theres almost a counterexample.

[/ QUOTE ] That's not exactly a counterexample - it's over the 22% and the limit is so low that it's sure to attract the poorest of competition.

[ QUOTE ]
I do think your findings are interesting though. I think the question becomes: is having a VPIP over 22% really going to improve your game that much, or do players who are tight preflop just experience problems playing the game postflop. And are these problems based on the fact that there hand is transparent, or is it just that nits suck at LO8?

[/ QUOTE ] I by no means think that the VPIP is what triggers the winrate. That would be kind of absurd. I'm not really sure - that was the reason for starting the topic - hopefully to get some insite. I lean towards the biggest factors being hand transparency, lack of aggression, lack of field thinning in crucial spots, and lack of competing for the blinds (not raising first in or not raising a limper in good position with reasonable hands, not firing continuation betting on scary flops, etc.).

[BillytheKidd]

I think that the one of the reason that you can see bad winrates in this VPIP range is because these players may tend to be very rigid in their thinking. Obviously they dont have any gears to shift into. They sit around and wait for the premium starting hands and then once they get them, often carry them too far and get sucked out by one of the "inferior" hands that shouldnt have been there, losing alot. OR, the flops misses everyone and they win a small pot.

I think alot of these players may have been ABC holdem players trying to apply these concepts to omaha, which I think requires more creativity and willingness to gamble it up.

[1MoreFish4U]

SLM - I should be able to figure out which player you are talking about, but I can't.

My DB is over 400k hands & I only have 9 players with 16K+ -and only 2 of those are -22%VPIP ... they are both substantial losers tho.

We only have a bit more than 8k total as well.

I think that these players suffer because:

a)they don't see enough flops to give themselves a chance to win their share of pots

b) they are playing this tight 'by the book' so they also fold 'by the book' too much - esp in the face of the constant aggression we have to deal with.

[Buzz]

Sweetluckyme - I'm surprised by your data. I would have thought that a very tight pre-flop player would have a positive but small win rate.

However, I have no data to back up this supposition. It's just that as I observe opponents in brick and mortar casinos, those who play squeeky clean tight seem to show a small but steady profit.

The problem these squeeky clean tight players have in a B&M game is skilled opponents who know the game are easily able to put them on hands in the very limited range they must be playing - and then these skilled opponents play accordingly.

Even so, there are enough unskilled opponents who stumble into the game that these ultra tight players, as far as I can see, seem to show a slow but steady profit.

But ugh - who would want to play that (boring) way? One cannot earn enough to make such agony worth while.

However, very interesting data. Thanks for sharing.

Buzz