Check Raising Top Pair Against a Maniac

[Still the Spank E]

3/6 game in a Southern California cardroom. I limp with Q10 offsuit, a Queen hits the broken, rainbow flop and I know the crazy to my left will bet. I check, he bets, and there are a couple of callers (who know he’ll bet anything). I raise when it comes back to me. He calls, as do the other two guys. I bet the turn, only the maniac stays with me. Bet the river, he calls and shows me Q3o—I win. Another guy at the table (a guy who’d been trapped for an extra bet) insisted that my play was bad because you should only do this with a monster, but I maintained that, because no one raised the LAG I knew my hand was good (at that moment, anyway); it allowed me to REPRESENT a monster after having played several hours of very tight poker and that this caused the other two schmucks to bail to my turn bet rather than maybe chase a 5-outer or gut. On top of this, I also felt sure that the crazy would attempt to chase me down, despite his ridiculous kicker. The whiner responded with: “do that EVERY time, would you?” and I suggested to him that only idiots do any poker move EVERY time. What do you think?

[chief444]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that arguing about poker strategy at the poker table is about the absolute worst thing you can do for a game. It's not that hard just to keep a live game...where half of the peole come just to socialize...social.

[avisco01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that arguing about poker strategy at the poker table is about the absolute worst thing you can do for a game. It's not that hard just to keep a live game...where half of the peole come just to socialize...social.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a fairly obvious observation, but figured I'd impart a word of caution. Check-raising already makes you quite unpopular as people will feel "dooped" and upset about it. Then arguing about why it was correct is one of the worst things you can do for your table image. It isn't fun to get check-raised, and it certainly isn't fun to argue. When people aren't having fun, they're playing serious, and you've now got a target on your back. This is a terrible result for you as you now will likely only get action from better hands as people will begin playing better, against only you! You'll notice more preflop folding, raises will gain more respect (especially your raises). You won't see as many horrible calls, usually people will have better hands and start playing actual good poker! I've had this happen to me, and it isn't pretty. Word to the wise, save your strategy comments for this forum, and don't talk strategy at the table. The more information you give about how you play / think to your opponents the worse off you are.

Along with what everyone else said about image, your play appears to be fine from the very limited information you provided. From the action, I get the feeling that you should have folded preflop, though.

[Still the Spank E]

Thanks. No, the preflop action was non-existent, allowing me to limp from the small blind. The nut was in the BB and limped along PF. Again, thanks for your input.

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks. No, the preflop action was non-existent, allowing me to limp from the small blind. The nut was in the BB and limped along PF. Again, thanks for your input.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a little confused. Was there a preflop raise? Or did you complete (fine, w/o pfr) and then your "maniac" check? The point is, I'm not sure how much of a maniac he is, making your preflop play more or less questionable.

The interesting question, imo, is what would you have done if someone else HAD raised the manaic's flop bet? No pfr, is somebody else recognizing that he's a maniac, or do they have you out-kicked? Given that question, I'm more likely to bet out and let the maniac protect my hand for me, then maybe c/r the turn, depending on the flop action.

Oh, and like everybody else has said, arguing about strategy in anything other than a friendly home-type game is strictly -EV. Just like bitching at somebody for playing "bad" blackjack.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and like everybody else has said, arguing about strategy in anything other than a friendly home-type game is strictly -EV. Just like playing blackjack.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and like everybody else has said, arguing about strategy in anything other than a friendly home-type game is strictly -EV. Just like playing blackjack online.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP, back. Blackjack live is very +EV if you can play for a couple of hours breaking even and drinking the casino's beer. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[jskills]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that arguing about poker strategy at the poker table is about the absolute worst thing you can do for a game. It's not that hard just to keep a live game...where half of the peole come just to socialize...social.

[/ QUOTE ]

Word. Thank him for his advice and stop discussing poker strategy. Period.

[The Goober]

[ QUOTE ]
Another guy at the table (a guy who’d been trapped for an extra bet) insisted that my play was bad because you should only do this with a monster

[/ QUOTE ]

The correct answer is "are you kidding? QT is a monster! I always play this hand . Just watch how often QT wins the pot, you'll see. I shoulda raised it preflop..."

[ghostwriter]

If you think he might raise betting out is better no?

[theghost]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm more likely to bet out and let the maniac protect my hand for me, then maybe c/r the turn

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this line.

[Still the Spank E]

Actually, when I call him a maniac, what I should say is that he's playing really, really fast. He was no brainless, clueless player, and I considered the likliehood that he would be the flop to be about 90%, while the chance that he would raise me wasn't quite as good as that. Of course, if I knew that he had a Queen I would have placed his reraising probability to 100%--guaranteed.

[Still the Spank E]

Thanks for your input. PF, I limped along from the SB. If the wild man had been raised by someone else, I would probably have tested their committment to their hand by three betting to find out where I was really at with them. Only if this were followed by the reraiser's capping it would I have begun to be concerned that someone had two pair or a set at that point, (though not AQ or KQ, given the lack of a PF raise).