Low stakes NLHE home game with a maniac: where do I sit?

[spentrent]

Just played with 7-8 guys with whom I'd never played. Most of them were solid players who tended to play loosely pre-flop but tighten up after the flop. Guilty, exploitable fun.

However, one guy was absolutely insane. He'd raise any two cards pre-flop between 3 and 6 big blinds about every three hands. The game turned into "isolate the madman" for the rest of us. Lots of pre-flop limping from everyone with the goal of reraising the lunatic and pushing out the solid players with trash hands like KJo -- 'cause that still crushed the maniac's range.

After a little 7-hour session I now sit here wondering whether I'd like to sit on his immediate right or immediate left next time. Sitting two seats to his left, I was able to check-raise this guy with big hands expecting to get paid off. It worked well, as I found myself playing tighter than the rest of the table and able to limp-reraise hands like AA|KK|QQ|AK|AQ and check-raise hands like JQ with top pair on the flop for value -- something I almost NEVER do unless I'm advertising.

However, we all know that the monsters don't hit that often, so I hand-wavingly feel that I could get more value by sitting to his left and being in a position to isolate him with more hands, in the ballpark of the afore-mentioned KJo.

Yes, KJo is trash, but while the other players were solid, they didn't strike me as savvy enough to raise behind me with hands like KJo to "re-isolate" -- I'd be able to get away with that without the other guys catching on. This would put me in more pots with the maniac where I am a comfortable favorite most of the time.

So what's better? Sitting on his right and waiting for limp-reraise opportunities pre-flop and getting mad value with check-raises post-flop? Or sitting on his left and playing more pots as a favorite but losing the ability to check-raise?

Thoughts?

[EasilyFound]

you want to be to his left. i guess as close to him as possible, but definately to his left.

[ayecappy]

not necessarily, being to his right has alot of merit to it too, it depends on your opponents.

[WhiteWolf]

Being to his immediate left and isolating w/lots of reraises pre-flop seems the best strategy to me....

[larrondo]

I think I read something about this in one of M. Malmuth's Poker Essay books. If I remember correctly, the suggestion was that if your opponents would let you get away with isolating, it was better to be just on the maniac's left, ie put the maniac at your right arm. If they realize what you are doing and won't let you get away with it, it's great to be on the other side of the maniac, so you can have position on the raiser in every hand and see what the field does before making a move.

Personally, I've had good times on the maniac's left.

[afk]

If you can get away with a lot of isolation 3bets, you'd really like to be on his left.

[spentrent]

[ QUOTE ]
If you can get away with a lot of isolation 3bets, you'd really like to be on his left.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if this makes a difference, but when I see "3-bets" I think limit poker. This was a NL game, so my intuitive feeling is that it is easier to isolate because I can make the price obnoxiously big for the other solid players.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

You want to sit to the maniac's immediate right, so that you can trap people between you and the maniac and not get trapped by anyone trying to isolate the maniac with a premium hand. If people are often trying to isolate the maniac, you will trap the isolator when you have AA or KK and just limp.

You are in effect taking the button on almost every hand because the maniac is guaranteed to bet/raise and you are the last to act after his action. Before the flop, you limp. After the flop, you check. Also, if you flop a draw in a multiway pot, you maxmize the chances of getting the proper odds to chase because you check, the maniac bets, maybe one or more people call (if they tighten up after the flop, they may be more prone to calling rather than raising if they hit the flop), and you get to call.

[jpg7n16]

I agree about being on the right.

If you know he's going to raise anyway, and you didn't like your hand fold... you save more money. IF you know he's going to raise anyway and you LOVE your hand (KK, AA, AKs), then call, let him raise, let others call, then reraise the crap out of him (2x+ his bet). Most of the other players might call his original bet just because they figured out he raises with nothing, but once you reraise they'll think twice about their hands and you should wind up heads up against this guy still.... just with a bigger pot. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

And maybe they'll all fold (including the maniac) and "you win heap biggem pot" -- uncontested. That'd be fine too.

[grimel]

3x BB == "standard bet".

If I can get a maniac just to my right I like to use Pokr's strategy. Call premium hands, let the maniac raise. Get as many callers as possible. From the now button seat, bring a pot size raise. Do this a couple of times w/ AA, KK, QQ, and AK then the other semi-clued players will start respecting your big raise and bail. Then you can add the odd raise down to AT suited. Kill the maniac.

If you get a maniac and 1 or 2 calling stations just be at the table! Accept you'll take some horrible beats and long term rake the monster pots.

[spentrent]

[ QUOTE ]
3x BB == "standard bet".

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you read this wrong. The poster I replied to mentioned a "3bet" which refers to a reraise. The situation involved the maniac already having raised, so your standard bet of 3 big blinds doesn't apply here.

On another note, I don't think 3 big blinds should be a standard in ring game play. Regarding tournaments I can see your point, but there are too many variables in ring games.

For instance, if I know a calling station will call up to 6 big blinds pre-flop when I have AA, then I'll bet 6 big blinds. I don't believe in "standard pre-flop bets" in a ring game. There are too many opportunities for increased EV that you lose when you don't squeeze as much money as possible out of players who seem internally wired to just need to give it to you.

[spentrent]

[ QUOTE ]
you want to be to his left. i guess as close to him as possible, but definately to his left.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense but I was looking for some discussion, not a simple statement with no justification.

Tell me WHY you believe that.

[spentrent]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree about being on the right.

If you know he's going to raise anyway, and you didn't like your hand fold... you save more money. IF you know he's going to raise anyway and you LOVE your hand (KK, AA, AKs), then call, let him raise, let others call, then reraise the crap out of him (2x+ his bet). Most of the other players might call his original bet just because they figured out he raises with nothing, but once you reraise they'll think twice about their hands and you should wind up heads up against this guy still.... just with a bigger pot. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

And maybe they'll all fold (including the maniac) and "you win heap biggem pot" -- uncontested. That'd be fine too.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my OP I said I was "two seats to his left" when it should have said "two seats to his right." From my dicussion this becomes apparent (regarding check-raises, etc). So yeah, I found myself doing exactly what you suggest!

But the night made me wonder what was worth more, playing monsters on his immediate right or isolating with "better trash" on his immediate left. I'm trying to think of a way to quantify the difference.

I'm thinking that on his immediate right I'm usually guaranteed to be at least a 3 to 1 favorite almost every time, so I'll win a few big pots. On his immediate left I'll play more pots but I'll be a smaller favorite pre-flop -- for instance, KJo vs. Q6o. Does this make any sense?