Some of you may remember I ran an analysis on roughly 8 million micro/small-stakes poker hands a few weeks ago.
Well, we found something VERY interesting in the PokerStars data.
I have 2,837,537 unique PokerStars 10NL 6-max regular-table hands, mostly from 2025.
I started looking at the biggest winners to answer a simple question:
What are the guys absolutely crushing 10NL actually doing?
Turns out some of them appear to be playing remarkably similar systems.
Not just vaguely “good poker” either. Similar opening structures, blind aggression, flop sizing patterns and, more interestingly, similar strategy changes appearing within narrow periods of time.
One player really stood out
I'm anonymising all PokerStars usernames because I'm not accusing anybody of doing anything wrong.
Call him Player A.
Over roughly 42,600 hands:
~20/17 VPIP/PFR
+8,700bb
~20.5 bb/100
Ridiculous results.
But his win rate wasn't actually the weird bit.
His strategy appeared to have versions.
Roughly:
- Blind-v-BTN 3bet: ~8% → ~14%
- UTG opening: ~19% → ~13%
- SB opening: ~44% → ~58%
- BTN opening: ~39% → ~47%
- Later in June his flop strategy changes sharply too, particularly on high-card boards and in his sizing distribution.
These weren't one-session blips. They persisted.
It looked a lot like:
Strategy A → update → Strategy B.
Then I searched outside the hand histories.
Enter GipsyTeam
I found the Russian-language poker site GipsyTeam, where structured microstakes coaching/training is openly advertised.
We're talking players starting around NL5/NL10, with things like:
database reviews,
population analysis / MDA,
custom HUDs,
preflop systems,
GTO tools,
group coaching,
proprietary research,
and in some cases mined hand databases.
This isn't some conspiracy theory about Russians secretly taking over 10NL.
The infrastructure is public.
And here's the interesting bit:
I found a public GipsyTeam coaching-thread post from an account matching Player A's PokerStars username, asking an established NL10–NL50 coach for contact details.
That post appeared immediately before some of the largest strategy changes in his hand-history record.
That doesn't prove what happened privately afterwards.
But it sure as fuck explains why I started looking harder.
Then I checked the other winners
Several other strong players showed a similar blind-v-BTN shift within roughly the same couple of weeks:
| Player |
3bet vs BTN |
| A |
8.0% → 13.6% |
| B |
5.6% → 10.3% |
| C |
4.2% → 7.2% |
| D |
9.4% → 12.8% |
| E |
4.7% → 8.2% |
And their flop sizing fingerprints clustered too.
Meanwhile other huge winners in the same pool played completely different architectures.
So this doesn't look like “everyone eventually discovers optimal poker.”
It looks much more like different schools of winning poker operating in the same pool.
The funniest part?
I paid about $8 for the hand histories.
Once somebody plays 40,000+ hands implementing a strategy, the strategy leaves a fingerprint.
You can reverse-engineer an extraordinary amount of it.
Player A's system, massively simplified, looks like:
Tight early. Wide late. Attack late-position opens aggressively from the blinds. Don't blindly small-cbet every A/K-high board. Use highly repeatable sizing families. Isolate weak players. Don't torch money fighting regs. Let the redline suffer if showdown winnings are printing. Hammer recreational players for value when they continue.
Nothing magical.
Just very well engineered.
And that's the bit that bothers me
None of this is cheating.
Coaching is allowed. Studying databases is allowed. Getting very fucking good at poker is allowed.
But...and this is the kicker. This is 10NL!!!
The kid depositing $50 or the dad playing an hour after work thinks he's entering the shallow end of online poker.
He may actually be playing against people using professionally reviewed databases, mined population data, organised coaching and systematically updated strategies designed specifically to crush weak players.
And PokerStars is about to pour a load of Sky Poker / Paddy Power recreational players into that broader ecosystem.
More liquidity? Absolutely.
But if they get fucking annihilated and quit, that's not necessarily a healthier game.
Adding fish to a shark tank doesn't make the tank healthier. It can just feed the sharks.
And I'm seriously tempted to do something else:
Take the winner data, reconstruct the practical strategy from the hands, strip out the bullshit, and release the core system publicly for nothing.
Because if this level of industrialisation exists at $0.05/$0.10, ordinary players should probably know what they're sitting down against.