So you want to walk away from a licence to print money because you don't like the smell of the ink? Or is it because you're a variance junkie?

If you can't figure out such obvious motives, how do you expect to optimize your play?

For fun and profit. Their definition of "fun" is probably different than yours though and you probably disagree with their strategy for profit as well.

I'm not sure how this is a "license to print money". When looking for a good 1/2 NL, you're definitely not searching for players who underdefend their blinds.

You nailed it. As a guy in his 40s, I can relate to the invisible feeling when in the US. I can't even imagine what it must be like for someone in their 70s.

OMC is the second easiest player type to crush against besides the loose passive stations. If you can't profit from a table of OMC you're doing something wrong. Usually the recipe for winning against OMC is winning multiple small pots with good 3-bets and thin value bets. When they hit their hand don't pay them off, it's very straight forward.

How are you and your ego doing OP?

I wouldn't judge anyone. Many an "OMC" has many wise tales and experiences to learn from. We all get kind of what you are saying but just something comes through thats pretty disengenious and while you are asking why do OMC play poker? I'd ask Why do you play poker? and I'm not talking about that awesome win rate you got.

Oh, and..

In a casino, my motivations are probably about 75% reason #2 I listed and 25% reason #3. I actually tend to enjoy reading about and thinking about poker more than I like playing it.

In a home game. My motivation would be more like 75% reason #1, 15% reason #2, and 5% each reasons #3 and #4.

What are these good 3-betting spots you are thinking of? I'm talking about players who play less than 5% of hands, and will -only- raise with AA or KK. If I'm ever in a pot with one of these players, I am almost always way behind, so I don't even understand where the thin value betting idea comes from.

Along with much of what's already been said, a huge factor is simply not being with the wife. When an OMC type stops working and suddenly faces the prospect of face time with the wife increasing exponentially, they'll look for things to do which can represent their "alone time". And after golf, what else much is there where the old ball and chain won't be inclined to tag along? I think this is what accounts for the majority of OMCs who are grumpy and not social. They're miserable and probably wish they could still be working, but will take this any day over senior yoga with the missus.

Will the next generation of OMC be any better? How will you be as an OMC?

5% of hands? Lol, so just raise every hand and then when you get reraised fold. Since they're only playing 5% of hands you'll just collect the blinds every time and if not you only stand to lose your initial raise 5% of the time. Seems +ev to me.

5%, I know that's simply not true though because I play in SFL which is loaded with OMC. OMC loves to limp more speculative hands as well. Their limping range may be stronger than a loose passive but you can still blow them off their hands with aggression, especially if you aim to make raises in position.

Actually, OMC is unbeatable and to answer your question in OP if you can't beat them join them.

The players I'm talking about do not generally limp speculative hands. I've also played against plenty of older players who do limp a lot, but that's not the situation here. My question was about players who sit silently at the table and MAYBE play one hand an hour, until they qualify for the daily food comp.

If your table is full of this type of player, it's true that you can win the blind A LOT. But the blinds in a 1/2 NL game are not really worth winning.

Let's say you are playing against a table with 8 other players who reraise (or make a big initial raise) with 5% of their hands and fold the other 95%. So let's say you intend to raise 100% of unraised pots, but will almost always fold to a reraise. 20% of the time, someone will have a top 5% hand before you act, and 20% of the time, someone will have a top 5% hand after you act. So 60% of the time, you will win the blinds (+$3), 20% of the time, you will open fold ($0), and 20% of the time, you will lose whatever your raise was (probably $8-10). As you can see, this is breakeven at best. Sometimes, both you and another player will have a super-premium hand that will actually see a flop or get all-in, but these games tend to be so short stacked that these sort of coolers just balance out.

If you want to get in the maths of it, I think 1 hand an hour is way less than 5%. Let's say the dealer deals 40 hands an hour and that's modest, since if everyone is just folding you're going to see even more hands. Playing one hand out of every 40 is only 2.5%.

Honestly, it is really silly at this point. Your definition of OMC is basically a player that donates blind money and wakes up with a hand once every 5 or so orbits. That's basically an empty chair at a table putting money into the pot 4 times out of the 5 orbits. Who wouldn't want to play at a table like that? OMCs still donate, they just do so at a much lower rate as compared to your typical loose passive station.

(Maybe two hands an hour is more accurate.)

But at 1/2, people who only donate their blind money sometimes don't make the game worthwhile to play in. As I said earlier in this thread, I -love- playing against this sort of player in a midstakes LHE game. But not when winning the blinds only gets you $3.

Because we like to play poker. Now just stfu.

Replace 4 or 5 OMCs with good quality TAGs. Which game you gunna wanna play then?

Or are you suggesting you get only a bunch of maniac LAGs to replace the OMCs?

Why play as an OMC.... you gloss over the importance of the socialize part. Just being at the table creates a sense of belonging.

NICK, in all honesty I think poker just isn't for you.

Florida old men are a different animal. The first time I played poker in florida after they lifted the caps on NL it took me 2 days of folding against old guys to realize they're a different breed down there and in some cases pure savages.

Several post in this thread have provided a convincing answer to me to my original question. It's socializing, albeit a form of socializing that is alien to me.

The specific game I was referencing (Harrah's AC during the weekdays) also might be unusual in that the room runs several promotions that reward extreme nittery (especially the rakeback and food comp).

My last several responses were addressing the claim that playing against extreme nits in a 1/2 NL should be very profitable if you just play the right strategy. Maybe I should ask this a different way: If these player are so easily exploitable, why aren't there a bunch of good players playing in that room regularly exploiting them? Is this actually some hidden goldmine?

7-8 years ago I used to play at Harrah's AC about 500 hours a year, and was able to pay my mortgage several years just from my poker winnings there. So I know what a good low-stakes NL game looks like. When I went back to the room a few months ago, the game was completely miserable and borderline unplayable. And it wasn't because anyone was playing advanced strategies that have been developed in the meantime.

i played some 2/5 nl there during the circuit event in feb. what a miserable experience. short stacking nits and high rake.never again.

SoFla is unlike anywhere else in the country. I remember playing 2/5 at some random Miami dog track at 3pm on Thu, there was only 1 other guy at the table under 60 and the game was bananas. It was like taking a time machine back to 2008.

This is probably the only place on Earth where a grinder can play 9-5 Mon-Fri and actually make a decent living.

Played in that room exactly a week ago tuesday- wednesday night. Profited, (ran very good). I changed my sleep schedule to wake up around 4pm to avoid old regs. Got into a great game with an insane Ukranian guy who blew ~800 in 3 hours, was cool too. Good times

With 2 super nits in the blinds, how often are you winning when you raise from positions like the BTN and CO?


For many of the winning 1-2 NL players, even an extra $3 an hour is a significant increase to their winrate. I'm sure there are regs that will scoff and say it's only $3 an hour when they are only making $4 an hour overall.

Aren't players easily exploitable in just about any 1-2 or 1-3 NL game? I don't think the type of game you describe is special compared to any other 1-2 NL game so I don't see why pros would flock to this game when they don't do that with other 1-2 NL games, and prefer to play higher where they can make much more.