Orpen's poker journey didn't begin with grinding microstakes or thousands of online tournaments. Growing up in the business world, he studied civil engineering and had successful projects in online gaming and marketing before turning 30. For many years, poker was just a social game after work. The turning point came when he met Ben Heath and Charlie Carrell in Monte Carlo and realized that poker is a legitimate technical discipline that can be systematically studied.
Poker Without History and Habits
Many podcast viewers were surprised to learn that Orpen entered high stakes without a 'poker past.' He had no years of online experience, no reads on opponents, nor built-up habits. What is an advantage for most players was initially a massive handicap for him. When he first looked at solver outputs, they seemed like a completely foreign language. Colors, combinations, and frequencies meant nothing to him.
He needed years of intense coaching to understand what the solver was showing and why. It wasn't until the COVID period that he reached a point where he could study independently. He now sees the absence of old habits as an advantage. He didn't have to unlearn bad automatisms and accepted theory as a starting point, not as a correction of his own intuition.
The Downside of Solvers and the Key Edge in ICM
One of the main themes of the podcast is the critique of shallow solver use. According to Orpen, many players are satisfied with just 'clicking' for a solution to see if a river call or fold was 'OK.' However, this ends any deeper understanding of why and the logic behind a decision. Orpen argues that solvers have, in some cases, made players worse because they stopped discussing hands, analyzing opponent ranges, and thinking contextually. The solver gave them a quick answer but took away the thought process. Players stopped asking 'why' and were content with 'what.'
Orpen openly states that the majority of his study time is dedicated to ICM. He estimates that at least 65% of his preparation goes into it for a simple reason: while ICM-related decisions occur less often, their financial impact is exponentially higher than regular chip EV spots. He emphasizes that the size of the field doesn't play a crucial role here.
Whether a player enters a 400-player tournament or a massive event, the percentage of players who cash remains similar. These are the moments where career-defining decisions are made. According to Orpen, it is a much bigger problem to open your range by a few combinations at the final table without a good reason than to make a minor error in the early stages of a tournament. ICM mistakes are silent but extremely costly.
Exploit, Backing, and Variance
Although his technical foundation is based on GTO, Orpen emphasizes the importance of exploitative play. He admits that, in the beginning, he was too rigid—refusing folds that solvers didn't recommend and underestimating opponents' deviations from theory. Slowly, he realized that people don't play like solvers. The ability to recognize when and how an opponent deviates from theoretical balance is the key to edge. In smaller and more familiar fields, this aspect is even more significant because the player has more information about opponents' tendencies. According to him, the ideal player understands theory well enough to consciously and correctly deviate from it.
A significant part of the conversation was devoted to backing. Orpen is known for viewing backing entirely differently than most of the market. He doesn't see the player as an employee but as the CEO of their own 'enterprise.' He considers himself merely an investor. He is extremely selective and claims to reject significantly more people than he accepts. For him, it's not just about skill level but also about personal compatibility. Poker should be fun, not a source of tension. He’s flexible in deals, open to changes, and refuses to put pressure on results.
Orpen openly talks about the fact that even the best player in the world can go a decade without winning anything. For the poker community, this is unimaginable, but mathematically entirely possible. That's why he considers public evaluation of players based on titles and trophies to be extremely misleading. According to him, there isn't a reliable rating system in poker. We don't see most of the games, don't know the exact decisions, and results are clouded by variance. The only thing that holds true value is the respect of players who understand the game and know what to look for.
Poker as a Process, Not a Destination
In conclusion, Orpen emphasizes that poker for him has never been about the label 'professional' or 'recreational player.' According to him, there are only good and bad players. What matters is whether the player strives to improve and understands what they are doing. For him, poker is a game where the result often deceives. The only reliable aspect is the process—studying, discussing, understanding, and the ability to handle uncertainty. Those who love this process have a chance to survive even the worst runs. Those who focus solely on results will sooner or later hit a wall.
More from GTO Lab Podcast
Alex Ponakovs: Why Independent Thinking is More Important Than Blindly Following Solvers
Nick Petrangelo: In $100k Tournaments There Aren't Weak Players Anymore, So There's More Work to Do
Daniel Negreanu: Being at the Top of Poker for Years is Hard Work, Not Luck
Fedor Holz: I Used to Want Wins, Titles, and Money. Today I Want Happiness
Sources – Podcast GTO Lab, Flickr, TritonPokerSeries
