Why do they bet 10 times the pot? Call or not?

[kylma]

I can't help wondering why do they bet $50 into pots of $5.. Or why do they raise $40 in the SB to steal the $1 blind fom BB? If they have a monster, are they not interested in winning more chips than just a couple small ones? If they have a good hand, why don't they just try to extract what the hand is worth? And if they have a poor hand, obviously, the risk they take is suicidal.

SB was just like that. I saw him go all in to small pots a few times.. He once had to show it: nut flush draw (only) on the turn, he pushes all in and a guy with a set calls and completes a full house. Second time he showed himself: he had a middle pair and a non nut flush draw on the turn on a board that had high straight and (obviously) 2 pair possibilities..

In addition, when he did hit a full boat he was betting it pretty right.. Extracting the max value.

That being said I was looking forward to a hand where I could call one of those awful bets..

He raises to $2 in small blind.. I call $1 in the big blind with 3d Td.

Flop is 9s 3s 3h.

He goes all in for about $60 and I have him covered.
This game is 3 handed, by the way, and I have only played full ring. An awful idea comes to my mind if some kind of a trap is being set for me.. After all my observations, could THIS be the moment where he indeed has 99 (or at least A3), the moment that he has been setting up? I simply cross my fingers hoping he does the same thing he has done before: overpair, maybe even middle pair, A9 K9 Q9 etc, nut flush draw.. there are tons of possibilities

Does someone fold?

Or should I just trust my earlier observations and call like I did (had him covered)?

As a more general topic, I'm interested in the "rationale" or the "psychology" or the flawed logic, or whatever it is, that makes people bet like this?

(Not talking about sensible play like pushing all in when it's a coinflip, but the few chips in the middle really make it +EV)

[lawpoker]

my favorites are the ones taht "defend" by rasing or reraising all in. only once have i had a hand to call with (AA). so i raised 3x BB on his BB, he reraised all in...just cause he annoyed me, i made him sweat it out a while before i called. he showed me a beautiful 74o. i took his stack, and he didn't pull that move for a while.

[Hillbilly Cat]

I think I may be able to help you with this one, cos I'm the kind of person that does this.

I should point out that I'm relatively inexperienced so there is a very good chance that what I'm doing is a bad play, but there is (probably) flawed thinking behind it that I'm happy to share. I should point out it often makes me a lot of money on one hand. How this stands up long term I have no idea.

My technical knowledge of poker is not great, if u asked me at any point in a hand about odds. +Ev play and so on, I could probably only give you an approximate answer.

The only plus point my game has so far ( i think ) is that I often read the table and players well.

I also, with on-line play, rely heavily on human nature. In particular things like greed, ego and machismo.

When I'm playing well I would describe myself as aggressive (overly so) and maybe even a bully. This is because I think less about the actual cards I hold and more about what you might hold, and how you might act. By far the largest portion of my winnings comes from betting marginal hands... yes that what I said, marginals. Frankly, looking at my spreadsheet some of my biggest leaks seem to be on the bigger hands, AA, JJ, AQs and so on.

I don't multi-table. I watch and observe and spend 99% of my time watching you. I can pick up your style, I can see what your after and I can play you for that.

Lets take a ridiculous example. If I *know* what you're holding then my cards make no difference. If I *know* you KJo in early (yikes), then I know you'll not have much confidence in that if the flop comes badly... gotcha! I could be holding 23o or AA, doesn't matter. I know you'll lay down (well at least often enough for me to profit).

If you're broke and steaming or weak or greedy, I might try it on and throw stupid money in the table. Do you want it or don't you? Of course you do. Will you go for it? It depends, but you might. And it doesn't have to happen that often to make a profit.

I also have a further edge in that I don't care about the money. Thats not to say I don't value it, its just that when I'm playing it ceases to be cash, it is simply a weapon to take out your entire stack.

I am rarely looking to win a few dollars off you, frankly I couldn't care less about the tiny sums, what I'm all about is taking aim at everything you have.

(I sound like a madman don't I /images/graemlins/wink.gif )

I'm also considering things like, where did you learn poker, who's advice are you following? I read up a lot on poker which means I can see logic in your play (even if its lacking in mine). Maybe your a multi tabler (many are) and therefore you're probably playing pretty tight, taking a smaller edge of many tables whilst risking less. Excellent, you're dead meat... You won't be facing up to my marginals unless you've got something, and therefore I take away those pots I don't deserve.

Even I understand that taking a pot that I had no business winning has higher +EV that and good hand.

As soon as I get a handle on you (and sometimes I'm wrong) you're dead-meat. Once I'm comfortable with knowing your holding and your motivation I've got you.

Anyway, back to the point...

In the $50 or $100 buy-in NL games I tend to haunt, players are horribly predictable. Not their play (a lot play solid, technically strong poker) but their stereotype.

A good deal of players for example sit down to spend an evening playing poker. This means for the first half hour at least they don't want to lose their entire stack, else they won't be able to carry on playing. Bang... I bet them out of everything. Who cares what I have? So you occasionally have cards and beat me... you'll lay down all the rest.

Most people like to win. Most people want more money, you can play on their greed and their ego.

Bets like the ones you described are often so tempting for greedy opposition that they'll take you on... yes, thats right, they'll call a $100 raise on a $5 pot.... especially if you've done this a few times already.. as per your thinking, you suddenly felt a trap.. you may have been right.

I often make a few ludicrous bets early on (see below*), which, unless I'm just unlucky, will have most people folding, even reasonable hands.... but then they get fed up, they think you're a jerk, they hate to be pushed around... or they simply want that money I've got. And I keep offering it to them on a plate.

Sooner or later they get tempted.. but... Oh No.. to their horror the discover I'm playing better cards now. I have my values...

Or maybe I just figure your a jerk who needs the cash.. some people are desperate to make a comeback. I put out lots of cahs and I can almost hear them saying 'this will make up for all my losses'.. the gamble, and most often they lose.

So, in answer to your question, I throw in bets like these because I think I read you, and I'm playing on human nature. Maybe you aren't the kidn who'll go for it, maybe I got it wrong. But does it really matter, I'll usually be picking up something. Given that I'm doing this on marginals anyway, there's a good chance you'd chase me off the hand if it went to the turn, so I couldn't gain any more anyway..

Now, you must be thinking, well, this is easy, I just pick him off. But you'd be surprised how many people treat that cash in front of them like rent money. They are just plain reluctant to bet it. If I throw fives of these decisions at you during the session (assuming you've seen me take on or two out) are you going to wade in and challenge me every time?

I am well aware of the shortcomings of my play. A good player will spot me I'm sure and I'll be nailed.... or will I? Nope... I just get up and leave. There's always another greedy, weak, desperate group who may fall victim.

Of course any kind of fight back will probably see me off. After all, like any bully I'm really just a big coward. But all I do then is just leave you alone.

I'm hyper aggressive when I think I read you, when I don't (or you suss me out) I'm as gentle as a kitten and frankly will just avoid making mistakes.

I'm often told about all the +EV plays and percentages and so on... I use it as a guide, but frankly I have another (probably worse) approach.

When I think I have you I try to finish you, break you and get all I can out of you. When I don't I just stay away.

I find its usually quite hard to get a good overlay on someone with cards alone. I'm sure you find the same. Most decisions are difficult, and its hard to know who's ahead. Money is the way to increase the edge.

So what if I miss some 'value bets'. All I need to do is catch one guy in an evening, get a read on him, and bang... I can get it in one hand..

In summary, don't worry. I'll eventually go bust and realise my poker game stinks, but for now at least you know what I'm thinking.

Hope that helps. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

* In my books a ludicrous bet is one you don't win figure to win. from a stats pov. I usually have about 75-85% of showdowns won, but 80% of my winning hands are won before the river... does that indicate something?

[DoomSlice]

Well... whenever I make a bet like that I do it because I think people will think "why would he do that with the best hand", and sure enough everyone wants to find out, and I flip the nuts.

[kurto]

May I say that your play would generally be described as 'maniac.' And you're kind of player I think most here on the forum want at their table. Though its good that you use psychology... once any thinking player sees what you're doing, they'll set a trap. Your betting tendencies will be your own worst enemy.

Granted... at a table of passive people.. you can do well. But it only takes one or two people at a table who are sharp enough to slowplay you.

[kylma]

He had A9. No nine came.

Kurto, I really had no chance to *slowplay* here ;-)

[Hillbilly Cat]

[ QUOTE ]
May I say that your play would generally be described as 'maniac.' And you're kind of player I think most here on the forum want at their table. Though its good that you use psychology... once any thinking player sees what you're doing, they'll set a trap. Your betting tendencies will be your own worst enemy.

Granted... at a table of passive people.. you can do well. But it only takes one or two people at a table who are sharp enough to slowplay you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh absolutely! I agree I can get picked off by someone sharp. I'm not sure I'm a maniac though.

I don't just go out guns blazing on a whim, its done when I think I have the measure of someone. I would hope to have picked up on who the thinking players are and am unlikely to get into a situation with them. I figure I don't have to beat/take on everyone at the table. I pick my fights. (and I mix it up a little /images/graemlins/wink.gif ) In theory, I guess I only need to beat one of them..

btw, I play mainly shorthanded. I struggle a lot at a full table.

If I don't feel I have any edge over someone you'll find I'm pretty quiet at the table.

But, as you say I'm aware of the weakness of my game, but I'm only starting, I have a lot to learn.

However, its a question of using what you have. I'm starting from the psychological side and will be trying to improve on the technical. I guess most people must do it the other way round. Maybe I'm wrong, but ultimately I think if you sat down a top flight technical player with a top flight psych player (and I'm over simplifying) I'd favour the latter. After all, if you can learn to read hands/people very well, there's little a technical strategy can do to combat it (perhaps resorting to game theory).

Either way, as a beginner I could get it equally as wrong trying to focus on technical play.. at least this way feels more natural, and... there's no denying it, it is more fun /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I'm constantly trying to improve my technical game, but its an uphill struggle for me. When I try to over concentrate on the theoretical aspects of a game, it seems to affect my performance drastically.

btw, at the moment, for my first 4 months of playing, I'm only about $300 down overall, and to be honest I lost most of that trying to learn limit play (boy I don't get that at all). I'm sure if I don't improve this will get worse, but ever time I play, I feel like I'm making progress or learing something new, which to my mind is the key thing.

I don't know though. What do you think? Is the psych aspect less important, or is it simply that its more difficult to teach/learn. All the books seem to focus on the theorectical and the mathematical, which is of course important, but surely in a game of incomplete information, any equation, such as it is, is highly prone to error.

I really don't know and I'd love to hear your thoughts. I'm simply following my gut feeling about my style of game, and then trying (with difficulty) to pick up the technical aspects.

It also surprises me that there seems a lot less material and discussion (here included) on the psychological aspects of poker. Do you have any as to where I can find more?

[Los Feliz Slim]

This doesn't necessarily apply because of your read on this player, but I'll do this with AA before the flop or the nuts after the flop specifically because it looks like I'm stealing (aka The Move of Honor). I'm getting addicted to it, at weak tables it's incredibly effective. I also think that when you're in early position and you get a caller, those in later position are more likely to call because they see all the money in the pot and can't resist.

[Bob Moss]

Hi kylma, given your read, you'd be crazy to fold this.

Bob

[Utah]

It is irrational play to make such crazy bets (although there are right times to overbet the pot like that).

However, it is difficult for timid or overly tight players to play against and the play could be EV for the maniac.

Lets say the blinds are .50/1.00 and it is folded to the maniac who pushes allin to $60 with any 2 cards. If the BB will only defend with 10-AA then the play is EV positive for the maniac.

Here is the math:
You will get one of those hands about every 40 deals.

39 hands = 1.5 x 39 = $58 (free blind money)
1 hand = -59*.8= -$47 (he will still win 20% of the time)

Total EV = 11/40 = roughly 25cents EV per hand for the maniac

[Hillbilly Cat]

I just looked back at some hands I had from the other night.

I had six hands directly against this guy (over a few hours), I'll simplify the figures a bit but basically. Assume there's about $20 in the pot pre-flop (about $5 of which is mine), the flop comes down, and each time I bet all in (about $50, its a low buy in game). Each time I had marginals at best. Having watched him play for about an hour I figured he didn't like committing unless he had a really strong hand. I reckoned he'd fold more than half the time at least, almost no matter what I might have had, If I bet hard. He seemed to see good cards whenever someone bet.

In this case he
folded three times = +$45 (yipee, 4 me I pegged that about right then lol)
called twice.. he lost once = +$65 (I do this with reasonable cards too)
he won once = -$55
(the other callers dropped out *every* time, but then again they were just really loose and hopefully seeing flops)

so.. $55 profit so far... now however I suspect he's got wise to me...

Next time its me and him however, I'm waiting for values and with my A4s (I know.. poor hand).. delight... i flop a flush and of course I'm all-in... however, its been a while and we both have much bigger stacks now. I go all-in for about $150 and he, assuming I'm at it again calls. My pot.

He left, I had a drink /images/graemlins/smile.gif

In actual figures the figures are not as clear cut as that, as it cost me a bit more on occasion to see the flop... but the overall was about right. You get the idea...

The point was I picked my time to play, and picked my player. Did I read him right or is that just lucky...? I have no idea at all... and I guess thats my question.

The cards I had did not dictate that I should win. If I played to theory then I doubt I'd have got much out of the situation. So, is there any sounds basis to my thinking? I really don't know. The trouble with playing by reading people is I can't figure out a way to know if what I did was right or not. Who knows, next time he may call more. Did he not call because he was watching the telly and got distracted...? did he simply not want to get involved in big wagers unless he was into a winner...? I simply have no idea, but I think thats what I read into it.

I look back at what I wrote, and I have the sneaking suspicion I'm disappearing up my own backside.. however, i don't have the theoretical knowledge to know whether what I'm doing makes sense...

Any ideas? Does it all just depend on whether my judgements correct?

Thanks, Maniac in need of help /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Hillbilly Cat]

[ QUOTE ]
It is irrational play to make such crazy bets (although there are right times to overbet the pot like that).

However, it is difficult for timid or overly tight players to play against and the play could be EV for the maniac.

Lets say the blinds are .50/1.00 and it is folded to the maniac who pushes allin to $60 with any 2 cards. If the BB will only defend with 10-AA then the play is EV positive for the maniac.

Here is the math:
You will get one of those hands about every 40 deals.

39 hands = 1.5 x 39 = $58 (free blind money)
1 hand = -59*.8= -$47 (he will still win 20% of the time)

Total EV = 11/40 = roughly 25cents EV per hand for the maniac

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow.. thanks for that Utah.. The maths is interesting (and where I struggle), also would it be true therefore that if the bet the maniac makes is less (but still enough to have the same effect) its actuall more profitable... i.e. a game where the maximum buy-in is $25, and therefore easier to get all in for less?

Sorry if I sound a bit dumb, but the maths of this makes my head spin.

[Utah]

"also would it be true therefore that if the bet the maniac makes is less (but still enough to have the same effect) its actuall more profitable... i.e. a game where the maximum buy-in is $25, and therefore easier to get all in for less?"

yes, that is correct. However, only if it has the same effect and the BB doesnt start calling with A,K and A,Q type hands.

[kurto]

"btw, I play mainly shorthanded. I struggle a lot at a full table." I suspect it would work better. The theory being that the more players you're up against, the greater likelihood that someone has a hand.

"at least this way feels more natural, and... there's no denying it, it is more fun" It does seem fun. And I've sat at any number of players who play this well. They usually burn brightly for awhile.. they pick up a lot of pots. And you do the one thing that saves them... you said you leave the table when people playback. More often then not, the people who do this push there luck one (or 5) times too many.

I think your play is good if you do (as you said you've done) it a lot early, have people think you're maniacal, then really tighten up and play good poker.

"Maybe I'm wrong, but ultimately I think if you sat down a top flight technical player with a top flight psych player (and I'm over simplifying) I'd favour the latter." I think if you read this forum a lot, you'll realize that a lot of the consistant winners are the technical players. Though at the higher stakes, I think there's a lot more of a psych game... but then, they're also proficient in both, the technical and the mind game.

"and to be honest I lost most of that trying to learn limit play (boy I don't get that at all)." That's because the psych game doesn't work as well. More people are going to call because you can't buy the pot. To beat limit you have to know your odds.

"All the books seem to focus on the theorectical and the mathematical, which is of course important, but surely in a game of incomplete information, any equation, such as it is, is highly prone to error." The math is going to win in the long run. But to win, you must also develop the ability to read players. I think bluffing is not as important a tool as many like to think. I play pretty much every night. I see more money change hands with bad bluffing then any other play.

"It also surprises me that there seems a lot less material and discussion (here included) on the psychological aspects of poker. Do you have any as to where I can find more?" Read the high stakes NL forum.

[kurto]

That rocks. Usually my biggest wins come from players like that. I can't imagine anyone folding a flopped set against one of these players. I would just cross my fingers that he made his usual all in and start cheering when he does it!

[kylma]

I understand what you're saying, or the concept. It would fail a real life test, though.
He always pushes all in with any 2 cards, fine, as soon as I pick that up I will call him with any decnt pair or A7 - KT etc.. I'm afraid the critical assumptions that the other player is very passive AND FAILS to adjust spoils the idea in reality

[Utah]

There are a huge group of players that would fold every single time without 10,10 - A,A. Heck, I play with enough players that fold almost every time they are raised 2.5X the blinds.

The problem is that these players are simply too afraid to challenge. They know the guy is likely bluffing but they are afraid to take a shot at him with a small edge when they have a hand like K,J or A,x.

There are many nut peddler players that have no gamble in them at the lower levels and they simply will not risk their chips.

Are you willing to throw in a 30x bet with K,J?

[kylma]

Hehe Utah. This is funny.
Ok, yes, I would call with KJ when he has gone all in 3 or 4 times against my blind.
But the other point is that if someone REALLY is so talented that he can spot the right players, the ones that muck anything but the nuts, AND the right moments, I think there should be better use for that awesome talent than stealing $1 blinds with $50 bets don't you think?

[Hillbilly Cat]

[ QUOTE ]
Hehe Utah. This is funny.
Ok, yes, I would call with KJ when he has gone all in 3 or 4 times against my blind.
But the other point is that if someone REALLY is so talented that he can spot the right players, the ones that muck anything but the nuts, AND the right moments, I think there should be better use for that awesome talent than stealing $1 blinds with $50 bets don't you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

I get it. I think Utah means that if players play to some kind of formula... i.e. they'll only play back XX or above, then they can be exploited.

PS/ I don't do this to steal blinds.. I do it to steal pots, and set someone up to take me on when I do have reasonable cards. I think it probably has a lot to do with on-line play. I think people just aren't paying enough attention, so by the time they've spotted what your doing, you're ahead, and you've tightened up. I never multitable. I can't see how anyone can exploit a table without paying really close attention to every hand. I can't. I figure most who do are playing a tight game, and simply trying to increase their odds of getting good cards per hour. When your watching one table, this is very easy to spot.

In a live game things would be much different I'm sure, but on-line people are so busy trying to get as much as possible by spreading, they're are neglecting an individual game.

Its only a theory, but I'm sure I see that pattern often.

[Utah]

I am not advocating this strategy and I dont think it is the best line to play. I am just providing the math and saying that the maniac might fall into a positive EV situation.

A good blinds player will eventually kill the maniac but a timid player will not.

[Utah]

"I get it. I think Utah means that if players play to some kind of formula... i.e. they'll only play back XX or above, then they can be exploited."

That is correct. Many good players are also easy to exploit by other good players. For example, I know several good multi table players who feed on the fishes. I love these good players because I have never seen them get out of line and I can therefore read them very well. For example, if they raise from early position it is AA-JJ or A,K.

[kylma]

I got it, too. However, you could be giving an impression that just forcing players out of tiny pots with all ins, or to scare them to give up their blind for an all in raise, is somehow POTENTIALLY a rewarding play. I believe you are not giving that on purpose, though, because your point is that

- some timid players are easily exploitable. WHich I agree to.

However, the original topic was to examine the crazy bets. So how should you exploit the predictable timid player who only does this or that. All in to steal a $1 blind or maybe a 5bb raise.. 50bb bet into a pot of 3bb or maybe a 10bb check raise? If someone is peddling the nuts, you can steal the pots with lesser bets than allins.. Maybe "only" put half your stack there /images/graemlins/wink.gif

All I'm saying is that it's another issue whether some plaeyrs are exploitable or not, and whether these huge bets into tiny pots are good play..

[Hillbilly Cat]

I guess they are if you're keen to get called. Which you may well be having got labelled 'maniac' /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Utah]

I posted my strategy for taking these blinds a few days ago.

There are times when these huge overbets are a great play. For example, I took a bad beat from a player in a 1/2 game. On the very next hand I was dealt AA. He open raised to $6 in the cutoff and I immediately reraised him to $200. He called with A,K because I mimiced a tilt play and I knew he would read it as such.

[Siawyn]

Personally I fold this preflop, but now that you're there on the flop, you cannot fold. Easy call.

[bobbyi]

You might also try the Psychology forum if you want a pure psychological answer. But I believe that a big component of why people do this is that they simply don't understand the math of poker very well. If they bet $45 into a $5 pot without the best hand, they need their bluff to work over 90% of the time for it to be profitable (disregarding the chance that they get called and back into the best hand or buy the pot on a future street), but they don't really see or understand that. They find it satisfying when it works, so if they win the pot here 80% of the time, they frequently get the reward of bluffing someone out which makes them feel like a winner. That makes this feel intuitively to them like what they are doing is working, even though they get caught once in a while. It alsmot always wins the pot, so it must be a good bluff, right? They don't understand that even though they succeed 80% of the time, it's still a bad bet.

[TrailofTears]

You could try the psychology forum on here... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Hillbilly Cat]

Thats very interesting.

Humour me for a moment as a realise I don't have a grasp on this very well (and apologies if you're all getting sick of the newbie), but ignoring the figures for a moment, I think what you're saying is that if you risk a large amount of money on a bluff, you have to be pretty certain its going to work.

(I suspect even maniacs have a 'feel' for that even if they don't know the precise percentages.)

But surely there's also another variable at play here (although this only applies in NL). Whilst one might risk less for the same bluff and thereby reduce the required success rate, this assumes that the relationship between the size of bet and the likelyhood of success is on a straight line.

What however if it is not? What if there is a point above which the bluff is almost guaranteed to be successful?

Surely, in that case then the better and more profitable play is the large wager, as it has a disproportionately lower chance of failure.

You might argue that this is not the case. But, have you ever played against players who you know are on a limited bankroll and therefore have created an artificial ceiling for their betting? Basically there are some prices for a bet that are too rich for them. When you come across such a weakie surely the percentage play is to simply bet whatever size you judge to be above their limit. In this way you take virtually *no* risk. The percentages don't even come into it, nor do the cards.

Now, ok no-one is going to undervalue everything, but for some their ceiling is so low (i.e. I'll only go all in on KK or better) that they are guaranteed losers to the big bet. However were I to raise 3X the BB they may virtually always call. (beign weak this is surely highly likely)

I want to point out I do agree entirely with your mathematics, but as with all equations yours is making lots of assumptions about standard play, behaviour and so on and in particular a linear relationship between betting sizes and actions. It assumes that players are prepared to call an *unlimited* amount with a certain holding. Would you be?

By placing an artifical ceiling on their betting levels, my opponents have departed from correct play, I must therefore do likewise to gain the maximum.

Naturally all of the above depends on reading the opponent well i.e. psychology.

However, if I look at it the other way around. If I risk less to give my bluffs a higher +ev, I may at the same time be disproportionally making it more likely my opposition will call.

Suppose he's a habitual caller, and I haven't picked up on that? Whatever ratio I bet I am a guaranteed loser as non of my pure bluffs will work. If the psychology here is wrong I'm stuffed... percentages or not.

Anyway, I expect what I've just said is nonsense and someone can show me why, but the point I'm getting at is that the maths can't give you a successful play. Only the psychology can, all the math can do is indicate the profitability assuming your read is correct. The maths is surely for assessing and minimising risk, not as a play-maker in itself. The play is determined by how the oppositions character/style/pattern affects the maths.

What do you think? Is there any sense to this?

I agree the maths always stands up if you and I were playing heads up and perfectly. But then if we were we'd simply be using game theory, and neutralising each other.

[kurto]

"(I suspect even maniacs have a 'feel' for that even if they don't know the precise percentages.)" Hey, Hillbilly. I'm haven't seriously tracked maniacs, but I'll give you an approximation.... I would say 19 out of 20 times I sit at a table with a maniac... they leave with nothing. They may double or triple their stack... have a real crazy run, but 95% of them leave emptyhanded. Matter of fact, I make mental bets with myself... "this one will be stacked within 30 minutes"... Or, I see the isolation reraise happen and I know they're done for. You really give maniacs much to credit. They're almost all consistant losers.

Even if they have a good night, they can't hold on to it.

"What if there is a point above which the bluff is almost guaranteed to be successful?" Your playing at tables with limited buy-ins. MOST people are (or at least should) be ready and willing to lose much more then they have on the table. It would be a poor assumption to think that others are salivating at the overbets waiting for a chance to call them on their bets.

I've done it a hundred times. I wait for my small pocket pair to hit a set. And I check. The maniac bets... I reraise... the maniac goes all in. I have his whole stack. He may have stolen 15 small pots over the course of a half hour and he did all the work for me, since I took it all in one hand.

"It assumes that players are prepared to call an *unlimited* amount with a certain holding. Would you be?" For starters... you're never going to be able to bet an unlimited amount. The amount a player has and can bet will always be a limited amount as some factor of the Buyin. Second... (1) people may know they have the nuts and they'll call anything the maniac bets and (2) it doesn't take long to figure out what a maniac is doing. The maniacs predictability becomes its handicap.

"but the point I'm getting at is that the maths can't give you a successful play. Only the psychology can" That's disproven daily. As I said... I rarely see a maniac/overbetter hold onto his money.

[kylma]

I read your replys with interest, but IMO you are thinking this in much too complicated way. IMO it's as simple as this:

with betting huge amounts or all in to tiny pots, you are basically minimizing the profit you can make off a hand, when you really have a hand, and also, what is worse, maximizing the loss you are potentially facing, when you don't have a hand.

There is simply no mathematical or other justificatiuon for these bets..

Ok, so Utah replied that it is POTENTIALLY +EV to play this way against timid scared players.
First, even if something is +0.1 EV, but the other option is +2.0 EV I think you should choose the latter one.. That is to say, even if there were situations where crazy play will make a profit, it is not by any means maximing the profit.
Second, we should not underestimate players on our tables, not everyone is so timid and scared of losing 50 bucks. Sooner or later a maniac fish will indeed lose his stack like Kurto said (I make those mental sidebets, too, by the way. Once there was a guy at Prima who went all in with almost every hand, preflop, or on the flop. In a $100 game he was at $300 for quite a while with many people folding. I would have called with any decent hand, but it was my bad luck I was next to his left, and 8 more players to act after me, I need a pretty good hand to call his all in with $100 bucks.. Anyway, of course he left the table empty handed like they always do unless they leave the table while ahead, which is rare. Just a matter of time). And even if they were scared, I'm sure you can frighten them with bets or ,better yet, check raises that are maybe 1.5-2 times the pot, instead of going all in which is just stupid.

[SynSid]

There's a situation I've noticed where quite a few players do this large raise that I don't think has been discussed yet: players whose post-flop play is weak and who think they might have the best hand but aren't sure. These are probably the easiest (and most profitable ones) to play against. I'm talking about players who'll push on a flop with an Ace in when they have a weak Ace in their hand - or on a single-suited flop when they have 2 pairs but not the flush.

I've found the key to identifying these players to be looking at the hands they DON'T do the push on. Once you see them show down a few hands that were the nuts on the flop and they DIDN'T push on the flop then you can be fairly sure they're pushing on hands that really only deserve a normal raise from them - and once you've worked that out it's very easy to know when to call them. Working out what they push on by calling a push is expensive - you can get the same information by looking at what they don't push with. When I see a player doing pushes on the flop a few times i'll even go so far as to call them down knowing i'm beat when they haven't pushed (so long as it#s fairly cheap) - to work out what it is they're pushing with (only if they have a deep stack of course). It's well worth paying 10 BBs to see what they had on a flop they raised normally with so you can predict what strength of hand they're pushing 150 BBs on the flop with.

[Tilt]

[ QUOTE ]

What if there is a point above which the bluff is almost guaranteed to be successful?

Surely, in that case then the better and more profitable play is the large wager, as it has a disproportionately lower chance of failure.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hes got a point here, but I dont think it applies to SSNL. I mean, if the limits were truly unlimited, I'd need the invulnerable nuts to call with everything I owned. But at SSNL that can't or should not be the case.

[maldini]

i often represent tilt after a big loss/bad beat by going all in the next hand with AA,AK,KK,QQ. it works miracles. people call with all kinds of crap. last week i did it with AK (worst hand i'll do it with) and got called by A5s and 77. luckily i hit and tripled up.

i also like doing it with JJ or better from the BB with nothing but limpers in the pot preflop. looks like a steal or a small-midpair. often get called by 10s-8s or AQ, AJ.

of course, i didnt it with QQ last night, got called by Q-10 and lost to the str8. oh well.

[NiceCatch]

[ QUOTE ]
I read your replys with interest, but IMO you are thinking this in much too complicated way. IMO it's as simple as this:

with betting huge amounts or all in to tiny pots, you are basically minimizing the profit you can make off a hand, when you really have a hand, and also, what is worse, maximizing the loss you are potentially facing, when you don't have a hand.

There is simply no mathematical or other justificatiuon for these bets..

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this statement. This ignores the psychological aspect of short-handed poker (the strategy that Hillbilly employs doesn't work at full tables, as far as I know). If you are good enough to make solid reads, this method is profitable. This makes the game much more about timing, decision-making, and reads. With non-tricky players, this method can work. It just takes full attention. Interestingly, I find it really works the best at high-stakes games.

The basic idea behind the strategy is, those who give action, get action. The advantage of being the initiator is you get to choose the spots where you do this type of thing.

(In case you hadn't figured it out, the point is not to pick up those small pots; the point is to get people to play your style, which is putting big bets on hands that they normally wouldn't. In a way, you are not only making reads, you are psychologically affecting the other players at the table, keeping them off-balance. You have to really be observant and in a good decision-making mode to be able to play like this.)

[Hillbilly Cat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I read your replys with interest, but IMO you are thinking this in much too complicated way. IMO it's as simple as this:

with betting huge amounts or all in to tiny pots, you are basically minimizing the profit you can make off a hand, when you really have a hand, and also, what is worse, maximizing the loss you are potentially facing, when you don't have a hand.

There is simply no mathematical or other justificatiuon for these bets..

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this statement. This ignores the psychological aspect of short-handed poker (the strategy that Hillbilly employs doesn't work at full tables, as far as I know). If you are good enough to make solid reads, this method is profitable. This makes the game much more about timing, decision-making, and reads. With non-tricky players, this method can work. It just takes full attention. Interestingly, I find it really works the best at high-stakes games.

The basic idea behind the strategy is, those who give action, get action. The advantage of being the initiator is you get to choose the spots where you do this type of thing.

(In case you hadn't figured it out, the point is not to pick up those small pots; the point is to get people to play your style, which is putting big bets on hands that they normally wouldn't. In a way, you are not only making reads, you are psychologically affecting the other players at the table, keeping them off-balance. You have to really be observant and in a good decision-making mode to be able to play like this.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for this, I think you described much more succintly, what I was trying to get at.

I just wanted to point out also, that in my example I gave earlier I'm not wagering $50 to win $5 (that was the more extreme example in the original posting), but rather its more like risking $50 to $20... and I'm not suggesting I just do this all the time. As I said before, I'm hopefully waiting to pick up a good read on someone, and then apply the pressure on them as much as I can.

I might wager $50 over $5 if I'm hoping to get called (and I think the guy will).

Your last paragraph captures exactly what I'm trying to get to. I'm not good enough yet that I'm getting it absolutely right, but it is a style/strategy I'm trying to develop.

I'm trying to develop a strategy that suits my nature, and what I hope are my strengths. I.e. I'm better at reading than I am at precise technical knowledge, and I'm also more comfortable being the aggressor. I guess for me the real problem is that learning how to improve the psych aspect seems less clear than the technical one...

Interestingly, your comment about...
'This makes the game much more about timing, decision-making, and reads'

Is what is currently attracting me to tourny poker at the moment. I'm not sure if its true, but it seems to me that tourny play places more emphasis on this than ring games, and that perhaps my style (if somewhat flawed) is more suited to that form of the game. I did however post up such a question on the sit-n-go bboard, and then general concensus there seems to be that I'm not a tourny type player.... so for now I remain confused /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

Thanks for the reply, I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my somewhat muddled questions. /images/graemlins/smile.gif