Re: three hands against one maniac
 

hand 3: "Just too many ways to get turned or rivered."

but so many more ways to win the pot with my pair of 6s. not putting in a lot of bets with my hand here against someone willing to competely overplay as little as one overcard is an error.

Re: three hands against one maniac
 

wow i guess im in trouble then because i completely disagree with everything you both said.

Re: three hands against one maniac
 

"Will she fold A-high"

never.

"Even lags wake up to a hand every now and then."

what hand does she have that beats A2 have when she just calls that flop? the answer: none.

Re: three hands against one maniac
 

"Hand 1: I fold preflop"

that's -EV and it's not close. that's just giving up way way too much. i would reraise her all day long with KTs and expect to show a healthy profit. when i 3 bet there, anyone without a genuine monster is clearing out of the way.

"isn't the way to beat a maniac gamber to wait until you have something to showdown before you go to war with them."

yes and depending on how maniacal they are, Axs definitely qualifies.

"Hand 3: If goes more than 4 bets you are probably way behind"

youre completely wrong. when i said maniac i meant maniac.

Re: three hands against one maniac
 

[ QUOTE ]
when i said maniac i meant maniac.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can personally vouch for this. Imagine someone playing poker without looking at their cards or not remembering correctly/caring what they have.

Re: three hands against one maniac
 

Hand 1, I raise river (or turn) if I think I can get A high / better Ks to fold with her. Otherwise I call too.

Hand 2, I fold preflop, I don't like putting in two bets w/ A2s, even if maniacs 3-bet is not meaningful, hijack raiser could likely have us dominated and in trouble, and the maniac will be in there pumping the pot making it quite expensive for us.

Hand 3, I probably play it the same.

Re: three hands against one maniac
 

[ QUOTE ]
wow i guess im in trouble then because i completely disagree with everything you both said.

[/ QUOTE ]

especially given your read. I mean, against this opponent Id have to disagree with them.

The point mentioned about 12 bets being a little much is valid though, imo. Id put a 4th bet in, but that would be the last raise Id put in on the flop.

Re: three hands against one maniac
 

Maybe this is weak tight thinking, but if she'd go 12 bets with a single overcard on a 632 board, doesn't that make her call of your flop 4 bet pretty scary?

Re: three hands against one maniac
 

"but if she'd go 12 bets with a single overcard on a 632 board"

how can someone know for sure if she would, but im saying that she might. as much as some of you will try to insist otherwise, my read of this player was solid and if she kept going i wouldve kept going and i wouldve been right to.

Re: three hands against one maniac
 

[ QUOTE ]
my read of this player was solid and if she kept going i wouldve kept going and i wouldve been right to.


[/ QUOTE ] I guess that explains why you posted the hand.

The contrarian point (which isn't valid, of course) is that you aren't that far ahead of a random hand that someone exercising even a wee bit of judgment (like stopping after 4 bets with a random hand) isn't doing badly if you'll go 12 bets when they are even just a bit stronger.