Are maniacs actually playing correctly (even if they don't know it)?

[LetsRock]

I was playing yesterday on one of those tables that should have been easy money, but the cards weren't cooperating and I took a quick beating. There were two hands in this session where I made mistakes based on actions that a particular player made. He was very loose and overplaying his hands, but I reacted a couple of times as if he had hands much better than he actually did.

On one hand, I limped with KJ (in late position) and the flop came QJx. The villain (in EP) checked, the flop was opened from MP, all fold to me. I call and villain call. Turn brings a blank, villain opens, MP raised. At this time, I don't believe that #2 pair is gonna hold up vs. both players so I fold. Villain calls. River is another blank villain bets and MP folds. Villain show a weaker J (then mine) to take down the pot. (another player was all-in, so I had to see his hand).

His overplay caused me to fold the winner.

Later (this is really ugly, so turn away if you don't like a slaughter) I get AA UTG. I thought about limp raising, but opted to open raise. Villain cold calls 2, MP (different player) 3-bet, LP call, I cap, villain cold-calls 2 again and the others call. 4 to a capped preflop (plus the blinds). Flop comes 292. I bet, villain raises! Now I knew he was loose, which made it all the more likely that he would have some garbage like an A2 that hit the flop, and I even gave him credit for a 99 (and he did cold-call 2 bets twice!). MP called, LP fold and I just called because like I said, the villain was just the person to have hit this flop. Turn comes 7. Check, bet, call, call. River comes another 7. Check, Bet, call, call. In case you like to play along, I'll put his hand in white: <font color="white"> 9,7o!!!!! </font> /images/graemlins/confused.gif

So the maniac ended up rivering me (MP said he had KK, which I expected to hear) and dragging down a pot. Now, I don't know if the villain would have folded to a flop 3-bet (somehow I doubt it), but when I saw his hand, I was not happy with my play - I gave him too much credit for a "real" hand. (I actually probably saved 1 1/2 BB by not pushing it on the flop by misplaying it myself, but that's not the point.)

So I started thinking that although his play was just awful on every street, he got me to play the hand differrently than I would have, had I been able to see his cards. Whether or not he planned this is up for debate, but he followed the FTP to a tee, (got lucky), and stole a pot from me.

So I guess the point of my post (I'm not whining about a bad beat) is that as bad as maniacs can be, they actually apply the FTP by playing their hands so unpredictably - they probably cause many "better" players (players playing "correctly") to make mistakes much more often than they would if the "better" players were playing against other "better" players.

I think this is why so many of us (here at 2+2) rant about having a hard time against the "bad" tables despite the fact that in theory, they should be easy money. It's impossible to put "bad" players on a hand and is therefore hard to know when to push a hand and when to just play sherrif. We are typically off balance much of the time, and if the cards aren't cooperating with enough opportunities to drag pots, it's very difficult to keep pace with the maniacs. (ie the session is a loss, usually a fairly painful one)

I'm not looking for advice or critique of my play on the hands. I just wanted to share a thought (albeit a long one) and see if others had thoughts along these lines.

[toots]

Interesting...

I was at a table with a maniac the other day. He took a bunch of my money, largely because I had this mistaken impression that I could bet him off the pot when he had the better hand than me. Actually, I had no idea what he had, although I certainly should have bailed a lot sooner than I did.

I racked that up to poor/novice play on my part, and went on with a little more wariness. What I found so much more interesting was the reaction of the other players at the table when this guy had clearly established his maniacal status.

One guy in particular, who I'd otherwise have pegged as a good solid player, got more or less obsessed that someone (either him or someone else) should make it a point to call the maniac down on every hand. I saw both him and his "deputies" lose more than they probably should have, trying to keep this guy "honest."

I just sat back and watched the fireworks until all interested parties (including the maniac) left, then returned to my typical slightly-less-mediocre-than-the-rest-of-the-table play.

But I'm still fascinated how he had otherwise decent seeming players tilting like mad at his play.

[squiffy]

An excellent point. Oftentimes, a "smart" maniac is just advertising. He wins both ways. He wins early on when you think he has it. When you realize he is being overly aggressive, you LOOSEN UP TOO MUCH in an effort to teach him a lesson. And this time he has it.

I guess you have to distinguish between real maniacs and "calculated" maniacs who are only trying to project an image, but who are switching gears against you.

Imagine some of these top pros who have maniacal and lose images -- say a Gus Hanson or Layne Flack. Well they're not playing trash all the time. But they bluff and play trash often enough that you start calling down their big hands with slightly weaker hands.

Who knows. Maybe they act maniacal on small pots or on early hands, then tighten up on big pots or late in the game.

The Mongols' favorite tactic was to attack, feign retreat, and then when their foes pursued them and lost discipline and formation, they would wheel about and ambush and crush them.

Some "maniacs" aren't maniacs at all. They are feigning ALWAYS LOOSE PLAY to get YOU to LOOSEN UP and COME AFTER THEM WITH LESSER HANDS THAN YOU NORMALLY WOULD. Then they tighten up and slam the door.

Worked for the Mongols in the 11th and 12th centuries. Works for faux-maniacs today.

[John Feeney]

[ QUOTE ]
...as bad as maniacs can be, they actually apply the FTP by playing their hands so unpredictably - they probably cause many "better" players (players playing "correctly") to make mistakes much more often than they would if the "better" players were playing against other "better" players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Though I'd amend your wording to say, "they actually apply the FTP some of the time...," you're basically right. I talk about that in my book in one or two of the essays on playing against maniacs. Though they can be extremely profitable opponents, more passive bad players are probably more desirable. It does depend, though, on how mindless the play of the mainac is.

[MaxPower]

Maniacs make correct plays much more often than loose-passive players. Only because betting and raising is often the correct play in poker.

Loose-passive players very rarely make correct plays, because checking and calling is rarely correct.

Neither style is a good one, but you will find that maniacs play correctly more often even it is unintentional.

[LetsRock]

[ QUOTE ]
I talk about that in my book in one or two of the essays on playing against maniacs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll have to reread those essays. (Good book BTW!)

The first hand i described was early in the session, so I didn't feel too bad. I just made a note to play sherrif on this guy if I had anything reasonable. He was playing very loose for the entire session - he showed a lot of very weak hands (and somehow won a lot of them) for the way he played tham. The AA hand was about 45 minutes later, so I knew just enough to be worried that he would actually have hit that seemingly great flop. (My cards in between had been so cold, that I couldn't "show" the table that I wasn't playing garbage which seems to slow down the maniacs a bit. In fact, I won my first hand of the session and then nothing the rest of the way. Ugggh!)

Given all the circumstances, I'm not especially unhappy with my choices, but HAD I KNOWN he only had 97o, I could have at least applied a little pressure to get him out! (of course then I would have been REALLY unhappy with the results - lol - I just can't win sometimes /images/graemlins/crazy.gif)

[LetsRock]

[ QUOTE ]
...because checking and calling is rarely correct.


[/ QUOTE ]

I read this in so many places from all the experts, but there are times when this approach really seems to be the correct choice.

-When playing against looseys (like my villain). They show lot's of aggression with weak hands. My hand is not great, but may be good based on his over-plays. It just doesn't make sense to bet into someone when I'm likely to be raised, and I'm just playing sherrif. I want to get to showdown as cheaply as possible.

After I saw that my 2nd pair would have been good (first hand in my post), I figured I needed to see his cards when ever I had anything reasonable thus the check/call mode.

I prefer to be more aggressive and just dump the hands that I can't be aggressive with, but sometimes it seems that cautious play (calling station) is the better option.

[Warik]

You do have to keep in mind that each playing style encompasses another playing style depending on the circumstances of a hand.

i.e. when a maniac is dealt AA, he is no longer playing like a loose aggressive maniac - he is playing like a tight-aggressive, solid player would play simply because of the good hand he was dealt. Likewise, when he plays some garbage like 47o or JXs, he will eventually flop a great hand that a tight-aggressive player would play the same way he is playing it assuming he would even be involved in a hand with such crappy cards.

The bottom line is that at some point in time, each player's playstyle will overlap the correct playstyle.

A tight-passive player will be correct most of the time preflop by staying out of hands with bad cards. He'll just make a lot of mistakes when he DOES get good cards.

A loose-passive player will be correct most of the time when he doesn't play his crappy cards aggressively, but his mistake is the fact that he got involved in a hand with such terrible cards in the first place.

A loose-aggressive player will be correct most of the time when he plays his flopped good hands aggressively, but will run into trouble by playing so many bad hands.

A tight-aggressive player will throw the bad stuff away and play the good stuff strong... he's got all the strengths of the other 3 and none of the weaknesses. If you stick with these maniacs you observe to be playing "correctly" for even 10,000 hands or even 1,000 hands, you will find them losing ALL of their money.

All of it.

For the most part, you won't have to wait so long. A lot of them will do it before your very eyes in just a matter of orbits.

[Nate tha' Great]

Hi LetsRock,

When playing against a maniac, I think you need to almost disregard any bets that he makes on the flop and play the hand as you think is most appropriate relative to the board and any other players involved. Resist your urge to put him on a hand, or even a range of hands.

My experience has been that maniacs oftentimes slow down on the turn once the bets become more expensive and they recognize that they aren't going to win the pot by bullying. But many players play very poorly against maniacs by not value betting and calling down enough. I saw a player fold an unimproved KQ-high on the river on a raggy board getting something like 15:1 heads up against a maniac last night and I thought it was one of the worst folds that I'd seen in a long time.