Crushing regs in mandatory vpip game?

It’s very unlikely a significant win rate is possible in a high rake, min VPIP game against tight opponents.

The phrase solid reg in a live 1/2 is almost an oxymoron. In a game where 90% don’t beat the rake, nobody is really “solid” despite that description being subjective.

Could you explain how the 20% VPIP is enforced? What's the grace period etc.

You have 60 hands to meet the 20% vpip, and if it dips below 20% after the 60th hand you get kicked off of the table.

A bot's VPIP in a 7-handed game against 6 other bots is already around 20%, and your VPIP in practice will always be notably higher than that, even in relatively solid games like 100z. (Any game worth playing in has some amount of fish and has fewer scenarios where you need to open fold because you're facing a raise or re-raise, has blinds who overfold and/or under-3b allowing you to expand your steal ranges, etc).

In other words, you do not need to adapt your behavior to meet the 20% minimum.

So calling static hand charts "GTO" is functionally true for most intents and purposes, but unfortunately this is a case where we have to get extremely technical with the definition.

Those charts are not strictly game theory optimal for all real-life situations, but simply the equilibrium reached given a specific set of assumptions.

Take an example where whenever you're facing a 3/4p raise from the BTN in the BB you follow the 3/4p raise chart, and whenever you face a 1/2p raise from the BTN in the BB you follow the 1/2bb raise chart. Sounds logical, right? Sounds like GTO.

Well, no it's not. If the same opponent follows the 3/4p raise chart with every hand that has 0EV+ for that size and raises 1/2p with every hand that is a -EV raise for 3/4p but 0EV+ for 1/2p, then you are getting exploited. You are allowing them to open ~10-15% wider without losing any value/protection with the brunt of their range.

Your goal in any raked game should be to find at least some exploitabilities against at least some of the players in at least some of the configurations and/or nodes. Even if the exploitation is quite theoretical, like rotely following the BB vs HJ chart against a CO opener whose range is 8 points too tight, you will gain an EV edge that they can't recoup from you if you are not making the same mistake from the CO.

I guess main idea is to track players at risk because they're forced to play much wider. You can even open huge with top of range as an exploit.

The other dudeface was right - 20% is probably optimal VPIP for an unrestricted 7-handed game. But it's much wider in this game, because you need to play wider than 20% to mitigate risk of going card dead. Being forced to play any two cards is an extremely bad spot to be in.

Minimum vpip =/= average vpip

My VPIP in 6m games is 25% higher than what it would be against 5 bots, so assuming the equilibrium VPIP is 20% 7-handed (it's very close to that), I would guesstimate your actual long-term VPIP to be on the order of 24%.

There's a 19.2% chance a 24% probability yields <12 successes in a 60 trial sample.

But even then I'm not clear on the other term of your risk assessment: the impact. You get kicked off a given table 20% of the time, so what? I would not put this risk on-par with any direct negative pressure on your EV. Is there such low volume on the site that 20% reduction in your selection of tables reduces hand volume so much that you can't hit certain baseline revenue goals?

Even if the impact is high enough when compounded by a 20% probability that the risk is notable, I imagine the risk mitigation strategies can be relatively modest. EG: For every time you are under baseline over your first 30 hands, you raise all your mixes (which tend to be prevalent parts of each nodes' range).

Even without a full understanding of the impact and without running all the numbers on how much my mitigation strategy above would further decrease the probability, it sure SEEMS to me the use cases for making outright -EV plays are extremely marginal.

I'm talking purely theoretically. Of course the psychological effects on others or even yourself are likely outsized.

The flip-side of this is folding all mixes if your VPIP is trending above baseline as you approach 60 hands so that your actual, generalized frequencies do not diverge from what's sustainable; only temporarily under special circumstances.

The flip-flip side of this is that someone could have HUD stats for the session specifically and could theoretically exploit even your temporary divergences.

The impact is also unclear to me. What happens if you get booted? Can you just join any other minimum vpip table? If the penalty is meaningless then the impact is minimal, and in fact your best strategy would probably involve playing tighter vs players who are trying to force wide ranges. And then just allowing yourself to get booted.

I just realized something I missed is that this game does punish* simplified strategies to some degree.

Both the theoretical VPIPs and my own VPIP that I used for the calcs above include a >25% split between VPIP and PFR, which is greater than many regs employ in reality.

In order to achieve the estimated 24% true VPIP referenced above, you'd have to use less simplified strategies like 3b or fold facing a single raise or even RFI or fold in the SB.

So that's one effect that I honestly think is even more notable than any of the others I listed heretofore.

*Again, what the cost of the "punishment" is is still in question.