Dealing with maniacs in omaha/8

I tried my hand at $10/$20 O/8 at Paradise for the first time this weekend mainly because after watching the game it became quite obvious a maniac was loose in it and the pots were averaging over 10BBs. This player called every flop (actually pokerstat said 98.7% so he must have folded one or two) and raised pre-flop about %50 of the time. Went to a showdown probably 75% of his/her hands with obviously a lot of trash hands that managed to get enough of the pot to keep him/her rocking. This player was the direct cause of some near $500 pots with only 5-7 players in the game and his bankroll would double up every few hands then fall back, eventually ending up about $250 from where I came in.


I tried to lay low and play a tight aggressive game but this player was pulling miracle cards left and right and I was eventually down half my buyin before making a comeback and posting a 4BB win after about 1.5 hours. I actually picked up a $200 win on one of my last hands with him with only a pair of pocket aces.


Anybody have any tips for dealing with a madman?

The good news about maniacs is they play too many hands, often raising with poor or mediocre hands. The bad news is they are aggressive players, making it more difficult (at least for me) to play against them than if they were passive.


Although you want to be in pots with the maniac, you still have to watch out for your other opponents. I think you want to be very cognizant of how the maniac's play is affecting your other opponents, and take that into consideration when betting or raising yourself. You may be able to use the maniac to help you beat your other opponents. You just have to figure out how to do it, and how to do it depends on your other opponents.


I've been in games where the presence of one maniac has induced *all* of the other players to adopt a tight aggressive style. Thus, although the maniac is obviously playing a loose style, the general tone of the table may become much tighter with the maniac playing the role of a fish and the other players all becoming sharks! If so, you have to become one of them, joining in the feeding frenzy when it is your turn to take a bite.


Note that all maniacs do not play exactly the same. Some are better players than others.


You have to be in the hand with the maniac to win money from the maniac. Accordingly, it may seem as though you want to be in more hands with the maniac. However, this may be an illusion, depending on how the maniac's play is affecting your other opponents.


There will tend to be more money in pots with a maniac at your table, but it may be coming from fewer players. When that is the case a higher percentage of the money in the pot will come from you, your pot odds will thus go down, and you will not be able to get favorable odds to play some drawing hands you might have played had there been more players contributing to the pot. When the money in the pot is coming from fewer players, you should want to be in *fewer* pots with the maniac.


However, in the pots you do play, due to their increased size, you will win your share from the maniac. This increase in the size of the pots you do play will more than make up for the decrease in the percentage of pots you play against the maniac. (Note that you are only playing fewer hands than normal when the maniac's play is limiting the number of other opponents who would be involved in the pot).


As to playing more aggressively, you're not going to leverage the maniac out of a pot, so don't even try. That is, playing aggressively against a maniac, unless you are simply trying to get more of the maniac's money into the pot, doesn't work! However, depending on the situation, you may want to play more aggressively against your other opponents sometimes (and less aggressively other times).


You might try a few rounds of re-raising a raise from the maniac, when a maniac has raised your blind. After a few rounds of this your other opponents may tend to steer clear of calling your blinds only to face a double bet, and, if you succeed in usually getting one-on-one with the maniac, then you can switch to only re-raising when you have a good one-on-one hand. Of course if re-raising does not succeed in isolating the maniac, then you have to change tactics.


Just some ideas.


Buzz

Thanks Buzz. It was very interesting to note some of the other player's reactions to the maniac and I can see from your analysis why this is an important consideration. One obviously when on tilt and went through about $500 in less than an hour. Another was using your idea about reraising to isolate the maniac (who several times rereraised with total crap like 3578) and seemed to be fairing the best. Another tried to become a jr. maniac by betting most hands and raising a large number of those.

ive played with one fellow (6/12 o8) who raised/reraised every single preflop.


the amazing thing was that he played very well after the flop (for example managing to get half the pot with very little).


the conclusion that i came to was that his preflop strategy was limiting the field enough so that once the flop came and it was heads up, 3 handed, or occasionally 4 handed, the nut-nut strategy was not good enough, *considering the fact that so much money had gone in preflop*.


for example, a three handed pot, one guy flops a nut high hand, maniac has some goofball hand (with longshot draws to some nutty stuff), and 3rd man gets partially counterfeited and only has draw to 3rd or 4th nut low. well, maniac gets out 3rd man and ends up winning low with like A7. and maybe on the turn maniac has draw to (nonnut) flush which would have been good.


so what to do? well, ive seen two ways players have adapted to this and done very well.


1) adopt a short handed strategy and do battle with maniac.


2) play extremely nitty tight and just wait for a good run.


a good practical thing to do might be to play really tightly except loosen up on the button and from your big blind. also getting into the right seat may be crucial. i seemed to do best with maniac to my immediate left.


brad

"the conclusion that i came to was that his preflop strategy was limiting the field enough so that once the flop came and it was heads up, 3 handed, or occasionally 4 handed, the nut-nut strategy was not good enough"


Brad - Yes. I've independently come to a very similar conclusion about some frequent pre-flop raisers.


"i seemed to do best with maniac to my immediate left."


I've seen (and heard) that opinion expressed by others. It may depend somewhat on your own style of play. For my style of play, I much prefer pre-flop raisers seated to my right and rocks on my left. Let me explain why.


Several reasons. (1) I can fold marginal starting hands instead of playing them to a single bet and then getting the dreaded raise or folding them only to regret not playing them when the anticipated raise does not materialize. (2) I can often "buy the button" by raising out the rocks myself. (3) Some rocks usually or often concede their buttons even without being raised.


Having position doesn't always matter in Omaha-8, but sometimes it does. With some rocks seated to your immediate left you often are last to act (after the first betting round) two hands in a row. With certain other rocks seated to your immediate left you are *usually* last to act two hands in a row. However, with a maniac seated to your immediate left - you rarely are last to act two hands in a row, because a maniac on the button almost never folds before the flop.


I'm interested in knowing how you take advantage of frequent pre-flop raisers who are seated to your left.


Buzz

well, for one thing omaha is pretty different in that if theyll play for one bet theyll play for two (generally) (or in this case if theyll play for maniacs 2 bets theyll probably play for isolaters 3 bets).


but i think the main thing is that this guy was pretty predictable and so if i wanted to check raise for value, i check to him and raise (him and 1 or 2 others), and if i want to thin the field (this was like his main theme) then when everybody checked to him (us) then i would bet out, he would usually raise, and it was hard for people with say a small pair and 4th low draw to call.


of course every once in a while when i decided to check raise for value he would get wily and check it through, but oh well.


brad