[afreeman]

Since party opened up the number of tables you can watch at once, I've been watching 10 tables pretty much 24/7, and my database is up to about 700k hands total over about 9k players. Overall, about 40% of players are winners at $25 NL.

Turns out that many of the most profitable players are either mice or rocks (VP$IP under 25%, PFR under 6%, total aggression under 1.2). Basically, the weak-tight players.

I've got 42 players in my DB with 1k hands or more. Surprisingly, the winners/losers with 1k hands or more split evenly at 21 each. Even more curiously, 16 of those 21 winners are are mice or rocks.

On the other hand, the eagles (TAG players with VP$IP under 25%, PFR over 7 and total aggression greater than 1.2) didn't fare well at all. There were only 3 eagles with over 1k hands, but they were are fairly large losers; in fact, they averaged a loss of about 75 cents (3 BB) per hour.

Anyway, this is obviously a very small sample. However, it does seem to roughly correspond to my experience at the tables, especially if you consider that most of the players with high hand counts are probably also multi-tablers. Even if LAG-style play might be somewhat more profitable at these limits, it would be very hard to do well at 4+ tables.

I'm sure some of you have looked at this as well, so my questions are:

(1) what trends have you seen at these micro limits? Is your data more-or-less similar or widely diverent?

(2) if you assume that the mice are playing well from a game theory perspective (which this very limited data vaguely suggests), how do you adapt to their play? Have you developed any specific strategies to crush these mice?