Does this argument make any sense?

[theblitz]

Was playing online on Party and had one guy who was raising crazy hands pre-flop.
He would also call what looked like big bets with 3 or 4 outs and seemed to be hitting a lot.
Obviously we didn't get too see every hand as he would fold if he hadn't hit by the river. I didn't see him showdown even one bluff.

This was his argument (I stayed out of it):
[ QUOTE ]


Player1: always chasing draws
THE MANIAC: lol and you give them for free
Player1: give them for free?
Player1: i bet about 70% of the pot
THE MANIAC: yeah
Player2: hes a fish hell call with anything
THE MANIAC: exactly... you need at least a pot bet for me to fold
Player1: lol
THE MANIAC: if i have more thn 3 outs i call
Player2: yeah right
Player1: 3 outs on the flop is 12% to hit
Player1: why call?
THE MANIAC: because i win 12% of them
Player1: but you lose 86% of them
Player2: lol
THE MANIAC: and bet you out 80% of them because you think i have hit
Player1: you seem to hit every flop
THE MANIAC: nah i dont you just think i have hit it

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this make any sense?
He built up a nice stack though he then lost a large bit in 2 consecutive hands (2 pair vs flopped str that turned flush - and KK v AA).

[LetYouDown]

I'm not sure what you're asking. He's saying that he doesn't need a hand to win the pot and he uses position to sense weakness, from what I can gather. I assume you have a question related to probability but I'll be damned if I can find it /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

[BruceZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Was playing online on Party and had one guy who was raising crazy hands pre-flop.
He would also call what looked like big bets with 3 or 4 outs and seemed to be hitting a lot.
Obviously we didn't get too see every hand as he would fold if he hadn't hit by the river. I didn't see him showdown even one bluff.

This was his argument (I stayed out of it):
[ QUOTE ]


Player1: always chasing draws
THE MANIAC: lol and you give them for free
Player1: give them for free?
Player1: i bet about 70% of the pot
THE MANIAC: yeah
Player2: hes a fish hell call with anything
THE MANIAC: exactly... you need at least a pot bet for me to fold
Player1: lol
THE MANIAC: if i have more thn 3 outs i call
Player2: yeah right
Player1: 3 outs on the flop is 12% to hit
Player1: why call?
THE MANIAC: because i win 12% of them
Player1: but you lose 86% of them
Player2: lol
THE MANIAC: and bet you out 80% of them because you think i have hit
Player1: you seem to hit every flop
THE MANIAC: nah i dont you just think i have hit it

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this make any sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you really let him win the pot with a turn bet 80% of the time, yes. If he makes a pot-sized bet on the turn, then he's investing at most 3 times the flop pot size to win 1 flop pot size, which must work at least 75% of the time, and he says it works 80% of the time, in addition to the times you call and he hits.

[theblitz]

[ QUOTE ]
If you really let him win the pot with a turn bet 80% of the time, yes. If he makes a pot-sized bet on the turn, then he's investing at most 3 times the flop pot size to win 1 flop pot size, which must work at least 75% of the time, and he says it works 80% of the time, in addition to the times you call and he hits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thing was that he was getting called many, many times on the turn and only let the hand go on the river when he missed.
He would make another pot-sized bet or raise a bettor if he had hit and would generally get a call.

He did lose some of the hands on the showdown but not many and I didn't see him go to any showdown with nothing.