Fictional fixture-backed sample
ONEPERCENTBETTER

OPB Founding Report

Alex River

Prepared May 15, 2026

Sample
60 hands · 12 tournaments
Platform
GG Poker
Format
Mixed
Typical ABI
$25–$49
Evidence quality
Moderate evidence

01

Executive summary

The pattern to address first

Alex River's supplied tournament sample reads as a player whose most useful next step is not a broad style rebuild, but a focused review of blind participation concentration. Blind participation ran 46% above non-blind participation in the supplied sample. This finding ranks first because the same observable decision shape appears often enough to be reviewed as a family, and because its correction can be tracked without pretending that one hand has a universal answer. Supporting review areas are mid-stack pressure response, passive gap under pressure. The report uses only production-safe participation and pressure-response metrics for customer-facing ranking. It does not use TAG Alignment, Stake Fit, or Leak Persistence as authoritative claims. Evidence quality is moderate evidence, so the adjustment should be applied as a post-session study focus and checked again as more tournaments are added—not as a guarantee or live-play instruction.

02

Your primary leak

Blind Participation Concentration

Moderate evidence

Blind participation ran 46% above non-blind participation in the supplied sample.

Why it matters

A concentrated blind gap can hide the exact positions creating the overall participation profile and deserves its own review before a global range change.

Specific correction

Split SB and BB decisions, then review the largest repeated call/open cluster instead of applying one blanket blind adjustment.

Observed value
46%
Decision sample
60
Tournaments
12
Metric
participation discipline
Read this carefully. Forced blind postings are excluded; the metric reflects parsed voluntary actions only.

03

Supporting leaks

The next patterns in line

Supporting finding

Mid-Stack Pressure Response

Limited sample

At 15–35 BB, calls represented 84% of parsed continue decisions after aggression.

Why it matters

Mid stacks create meaningful commitment choices. A repeated call-heavy shape is actionable because it can be reviewed as a bounded decision family.

Specific correction

During post-session review, compare the call to raise/jam/fold alternatives in every tagged 15–35 BB pressure spot.

Observed value
84%
Decision sample
25
Tournaments
12
Metric
passive gap pressure

Why it ranks lower: Its ranking score was lower after severity, frequency, reliability, and actionability were combined.

Read this carefully. Exact PKO, ICM, opponent, and sizing context can change the best response.

Supporting finding

Passive Gap Under Pressure

Limited sample

Calls represented 84% of parsed continue decisions after preflop aggression.

Why it matters

The result does not declare those calls wrong. It identifies a repeated response shape where raise, jam, and fold alternatives deserve structured comparison during review.

Specific correction

Tag every continue-versus-aggression decision and compare call, raise/jam, and fold by position and effective stack.

Observed value
84%
Decision sample
25
Tournaments
12
Metric
passive gap pressure

Why it ranks lower: Its ranking score was lower after severity, frequency, reliability, and actionability were combined.

Read this carefully. This is an action-mix signal, not a claim that every call should become a raise or fold.

04

Evidence from your play

The measurements behind the ranking

Participation Discipline

Observable voluntary preflop participation from parsed GG hand histories.

overall voluntary entry · 70% · n=60blind concentration gap · 46% · n=60

Passive Gap Pressure

Observable call-versus-reraise mix after facing preflop aggression.

call share when continuing vs aggression · 84% · n=25mid stack call share · 84% · n=25

05

Representative situations

Examples that carry the pattern

  1. SAMPLE-001

    BB · 24 BB · KJo

    Opponent raise → Hero call

    Decision
    call
    Actual result
    -3.4 BB

    This is a direct example of blind participation concentration in the parsed sample.

    Future review rule: Split SB and BB decisions, then review the largest repeated call/open cluster instead of applying one blanket blind adjustment.

  2. SAMPLE-002

    BB · 24 BB · KJo

    Opponent raise → Hero call

    Decision
    call
    Actual result
    -3.4 BB

    This is a direct example of blind participation concentration in the parsed sample.

    Future review rule: Split SB and BB decisions, then review the largest repeated call/open cluster instead of applying one blanket blind adjustment.

  3. SAMPLE-003

    BB · 24 BB · KJo

    Opponent raise → Hero call

    Decision
    call
    Actual result
    -3.4 BB

    This is a direct example of blind participation concentration in the parsed sample.

    Future review rule: Split SB and BB decisions, then review the largest repeated call/open cluster instead of applying one blanket blind adjustment.

  4. SAMPLE-004

    BB · 24 BB · KJo

    Opponent raise → Hero call

    Decision
    call
    Actual result
    -3.4 BB

    This is a direct example of blind participation concentration in the parsed sample.

    Future review rule: Split SB and BB decisions, then review the largest repeated call/open cluster instead of applying one blanket blind adjustment.

  5. SAMPLE-005

    BB · 24 BB · KJo

    Opponent raise → Hero call

    Decision
    call
    Actual result
    -3.4 BB

    This is a direct example of blind participation concentration in the parsed sample.

    Future review rule: Split SB and BB decisions, then review the largest repeated call/open cluster instead of applying one blanket blind adjustment.

06

Your next 100 games

For your next 100 tournaments, focus on this one change.

Split SB and BB decisions, then review the largest repeated call/open cluster instead of applying one blanket blind adjustment.

  1. Before each session, read the one-sentence correction at the top of this report.
  2. After each session, tag every hand that matches the primary finding's position, stack, and pressure context.
  3. During review, split voluntary entries by position and stack band before changing any baseline range.
  4. Review at least five tagged examples together before changing a baseline range.
  5. Re-run the report after the next 100 tournaments and verify whether the same pattern frequency moved.

07

What this report does not mean

Keep the evidence in bounds

  • This report evaluates patterns in the supplied sample.
  • It does not guarantee future results; tournament variance remains significant.
  • Limited samples reduce confidence and should not trigger broad range changes.
  • This product is for post-session study and pre-session preparation, never active in-game assistance.