Re: Certainly there\'s a better line
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd fold preflop. Given your 3-bet I'm getting to showdown. My suggestion would be to bet the turn, call a raise, and check the river, calling basically any non-King.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? He's a 30% pfr.

Re: Certainly there\'s a better line
 

Yeah but no matter how wide a range you give him you're always going to be a coinflip, equity-wise, and this guy is going to showdown almost everytime. It seems you're going to be donating a lot of money when behind (since you have to call down on a ton of 853Q2 boards only to be shown A5) and making $$ only when you hit a set.

Re: Certainly there\'s a better line
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah but no matter how wide a range you give him you're always going to be a coinflip, equity-wise, and this guy is going to showdown almost everytime. It seems you're going to be donating a lot of money when behind (since you have to call down on a ton of 853Q2 boards only to be shown A5) and making $$ only when you hit a set.

[/ QUOTE ]
So where do you draw the line? If you keep folding hands like these, he'll continue making a living off your blinds. If you resist, he will be less likely to steal against you. If you are going to let him steal, I'd move tables immediately.

Also, I disagree with your contention that we are only making money when we hit a set. That's ridiculous, this guy is superloose and bluffs too much. He will certainly call the flop and turn with an overcard. He will call you down/bet with ace high pretty often too.

Re: Certainly there\'s a better line
 

Like I said in an earlier post in this thread, even if you 3-bet preflop this guy is raising you on tons and tons of flops with hands you're behind of and ahead. So you're going to have to be willing to call down on superscary boards really often (which allows him to make money of you too as he can value bet you to death with a real hand) or you're going to be folding the winner a lot. Plus, 3-betting preflop makes the pot bigger and makes it more correct for him to draw to overcards.

Your hand is not stellar and barely has an edge vs. this guy, plus you're out of position.

Re: Certainly there\'s a better line
 

FWIW, this is pretty much "the line" for me. I would play 66 here, but I'm not even sure if that's correct [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: Certainly there\'s a better line
 

We have tasty reverse implied odds for the pf call.

I see a showdown.

Re: Certainly there\'s a better line
 

There are two reasonable ways to play this hand:

1. Fold preflop. It is a very marginal situation. You have no guarentee of getting heads up, no fold equity with a pair versus a maniac, and bad implied odds because of your poor position and small pair. You will lose more money when you are beat than you will win when 44 is the best hand.

2. 3-bet preflop to isolate. Once you get heads up versus this player you are virtually committed to showing your hand down unless you get counterfeited or something. It is not possible to learn enough about a maniac's hand to justify a fold. The whole point of playing a negative implied odds hand preflop is to capture your share of the preflop pot equity by showing down versus his random hand.