Re: results
 

[ QUOTE ]
[You know] she has QT and just picked up an 8 outer. You still 3 bet? Let's say you do. She puts in one extra bet. River is a black, she check folds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if she spikes a Q or T, 6 outs. And who knows if she'll bet some scare card as well. Think about it, your draw for the river bet is almost as strong as hers. And if she misses, she doesn't get a showdown.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say you don't 3bet. She bluff bets the river, you call and take one extra bet. Results are the same...

[/ QUOTE ]

No. No. No. See this is the problem. You have a misunderstanding of EV that is as fundamental as it is rampant among posters. This way of counting: If I keep it to 3 bets going in, I never lose the 4th bet which I can't win -- apart from being false on it's face, is wrong headed. Unless you have someone drawing dead, you don't earn a bet when they put it in, you earn some fraction of that bet, and gambling is largely about manipulating your opponent to put in more bets with the wrong side of that fraction. There is a huge difference between your opponent putting in 2 and 3 turn bets in with 8 clean outs. Having your opponent pore money into the pot when you have the best of it shouldn't be this confusing.

[ QUOTE ]
One last thing. Kevin J is absolutely correct when he says there are many types and degrees of maniac. To try and put all maniacs into one category will be costly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please point to a single poster who disagrees with this statement.

Re: results
 

Point taken. Perhaps I didn't accurately describe the player in question. She wasn't the brand of maniac who does not consider the other player's holding, just the type that tends to overplay hands and bluff a bit too much. Like I said, because I felt she would bet the river if she was on a draw and missed, and it was also reasonably possible she had two pair or set, I just called. She respected my play, so since she is playing back at me when I have represented a very strong hand, I think 3 betting here is questionable. I appreciate all the feedback.

Re: results
 

i think the common definition off what you just described is loose-aggressive or LAG, not a maniac.