30-60 AA hand
 

30-60 at Commerce today. I have a maniac on my right, and I have had the pleasure of getting her heads up twice in my first hour of play. She loves making moves but occationally turns over a real hand. She open raises from MP, and I three bet with red aces.

Flop: 9 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]5 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]3 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

She checks, I bet, and she calls.

Turn:J [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

She checks, I bet she raises. Whats your play, 3 bet or call? As simple as this hand was it got me thinking about quite a bit. Results later.

Re: 30-60 AA hand
 

if it's a maniac i'd probably call here preflop and invite some other people along for the ride. you're going to look like you're calling with a marginal hand just because of her loose standards.

playing the hand as you did, i would 3bet the turn. without the presense of 2 flush draws, i could be inclined to raise the river instead.

Re: 30-60 AA hand
 

The answer to this question depends a lot on your opponent. You say she is a 'maniac' which leads me to believe it wouldn't take a whole heck of a lot for her to make this checkraise. If she would make this move with an overpair, Jack, flush draw etc then I would reraise. From my experience though, if you get 4-bet by a reasonable player here you're in deep trouble. But this IS a maniac so she could have a variety of less hands to do this.

Pipedream

Re: 30-60 AA hand
 

She could make this play with a nine a jack, a draw or a big hand like a set. Like pipedream said, I figured if I did three bet, there was a good possiblity of getting 4 bet, and I was not folding my hand under any circumstances.

So if she does have me beat and I three bet, she will four bet me, and I will have to call her four bet, and a river bet. So If I'm wrong, I lose 5 bets total between the turn and the river. If she has a draw, and I just call the turn, she will bet into me again on the river so I get three bets total. But if she has a draw and I raise her, I still only get three bets because she obviously won't pay off on the end. Finally, she could have a made hand that is inferior to mine, in which case she will call my three bet and another bet on the river. So I get 4 bets when she holds a worse made hand.

It got me thinking about some of those checkraise situations where you are up agaist someone who is very possibly on a draw, but could also hold a big hand. Sometimes I think it's better not to three bet without a very big hand in these spots, because if it is a draw, they are probably going to bet the river anyway a lot of time, so you get the same amount of bets. But when you are behind, you can end up losing as many as five bets if you are reraised and then bet into on the river.

So supose a third of the time she has a draw, a third of the time she a hand she can call my three bet with and pay off the river with, and a third of the time she had a hand that has me beaten and it costs me five bets to showdown. I'm not a math guy, so whats the right play?

Re: 30-60 AA hand
 

hi gay
3 bet

Re: 30-60 AA hand
 

hi gay
3 bet

This struck me as damn funny.

Re: 30-60 AA hand
 

I'd just call. A 4 bet even from a maniac, can't feel good and do you really want to stop her from betting the river? Or worse, fold AJ on the turn?

Re: 30-60 AA hand
 

Easy 3-bet here. As far as gambling it up with a maniac, this seems like a great spot. I'm curious what makes it interesting.

Re: 30-60 AA hand
 

If I'm out of position, I three bet for sure, because I want to charge her if she is on a draw. But with position, I think calling might be best because if she is bluffing, she will probably bet the river for me anyway, and I dont put myself in danger of losing 5 bets between the turn and river. If I wasnt sure she would bet the river with a busted draw, I think I might have to raise the turn for sure, but since I was, I just called.

Re: 30-60 AA hand
 

This is some tough lover, Focker.

Oh. I got it. If you 3-bet then you get 75% of that last bet (or whatever your equity is when you are ahead) and the 4th bet only goes in when you are beat -- and that is versus that 3rd bet going in on the river with you either a loser or a winner, but 75% (or whatever) you a winner.

Yeah. You're horribly confused. I mean horribly. That's me talking tough to shake you out of it, not trying to be offensive. You've either underthought or overthought this, but you've gone astray! One of the many reasons you 3-bet is because she'll 4-bet a worse hand. But in any case, many second best hands and miscellaneous misses will pay off the river, or even give up multiple bets, so don't worry your pretty head about that.

JJ is impossible and 33, 44, 99 seem a bit unlikely too unless the maniac went against type preflop and flop. J9?, a maniac check called top pair on the flop? Piffle. Meanwhile there are a zillion draws and this is a maniac.

If you are afraid of a big draw and a maniac on a rush getting there, well... it's okay, don't let the other boys tease you.

Re: 30-60 AA hand
 

i've never seen a maniac fold aj on that board if that maniac c-c'd (check called) the flop and then c-r'd the turn. thats the definition of a maniac, they bet/raise/reraise/c-r with many different holdings and of those many different holdings the one's you're worried about are 99 jj and j9. thats just about the only hands i could see the maniac raising with in mp that would pose a threat to you right now (unless its a crazy loon maniac razing w/ 95/35/39 and suffers from a bad case of FPS by c/c flop and c-r'ing turn with them.
soooo...easy 3 bet b/c maniac could have qq, kk, tt, 88, 77, 66 or basicaly any pair or crazy draw you could think of. further, reraising turn will in no way stop a maniac from betting river out of position.

just my opinion. comments? questoins?
-Barron

Re: 30-60 AA hand MATH ANSWER
 

[ QUOTE ]
She could make this play with a nine a jack, a draw or a big hand like a set. Like pipedream said, I figured if I did three bet, there was a good possiblity of getting 4 bet, and I was not folding my hand under any circumstances.

So if she does have me beat and I three bet, she will four bet me, and I will have to call her four bet, and a river bet. So If I'm wrong, I lose 5 bets total between the turn and the river. If she has a draw, and I just call the turn, she will bet into me again on the river so I get three bets total. But if she has a draw and I raise her, I still only get three bets because she obviously won't pay off on the end. Finally, she could have a made hand that is inferior to mine, in which case she will call my three bet and another bet on the river. So I get 4 bets when she holds a worse made hand.

It got me thinking about some of those checkraise situations where you are up agaist someone who is very possibly on a draw, but could also hold a big hand. Sometimes I think it's better not to three bet without a very big hand in these spots, because if it is a draw, they are probably going to bet the river anyway a lot of time, so you get the same amount of bets. But when you are behind, you can end up losing as many as five bets if you are reraised and then bet into on the river.

So supose a third of the time she has a draw, a third of the time she a hand she can call my three bet with and pay off the river with, and a third of the time she had a hand that has me beaten and it costs me five bets to showdown. I'm not a math guy, so whats the right play?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well since you asked i'll give that math answer a wirl. its one of those situations where that is EXACTLY what you would want to do against good/tricky and other tricky players and is well thought out. BUT we may not be dealing with one of those because its a MANIAC.

anyway i did the EV/time played calculations and ended up with +$0.33 per time we reraise the turn and maniac caps and we call maniacs river bet/bluff. so we know that its at least a positive ev play. but is it the play with the most positive ev? if we just call it costs two fewer bets on the turn but we win two bets fewer bets those 2/3's of the time where we'd get them on the turn. i did the calculations w/ identical assumptions and found out that it is +$0.22 per time played because we don't win those 7 total bets when we reraise he caps the 2/3's of time with worse hand) when we call turn c-r and call when bet into on the river.

In addiation, the initial assumptions were 1/3 hand worse, 1/3 hand better, 1/3 draw which wouldn't pay off but would bet if we called. but maniac will r-r with ANY draw and will have worse hands and draws MUCH more than 2/3 of the time in this situation...probably more like 5/6 of the time or higher if its a real maniac, kq would give the maniac a draw, any qt, any aj, even a9 (a little unlikely since h'ed most likely bet and 3 bet flop with top pair top kicker), but other hands include any bigcard+jack or even overcards with some people. so i think maniac would cap and bet out river a total of many more times with worse hands/draws when we take into account the likelihood of each hand he'd do it with.

As a result, you're looking at an even higher EV for the reraise turn vs. call turn & river (probably more than $0.50 maybe even $1.00 b/c of the two bet difference a lot of the times the maniac has worse hands which are so much more likely).

Other variations like call turn raise river or reraise reraise reraise again (pretty unlikely...i wouldn't wanna spend that much on this hand) but i think they won't be much higher than the reraise & maniac caps and we call river as per above analysis.

And i think the reason the less aggressive approach is better vs. a good player is b/c those times won't be 1/3 1/3 1/3...it is much more likely the better player has much better hands in this situation and won't be raraising w/ cockeyed draws giving us 2 extra turn bets and 1 extra river bet so the times we are reraised on turn we'll be looking at a winner much more often than with the maniac.

what does everybody think? and can someone check my math (i did it in spreadsheet form on excel) questions? comments?

-Barron

So there's my shot at an introductory "math answer" for you

Re: 30-60 AA hand
 

You might be right, but in my experience, many maniacs tend to get their maniacal behavior out of the way pre-flop, and/or on the flop, and start falling in line by the turn. That's not to say there aren't 4th and 5th street maniacs as well, but they are a rarer breed in my opinion.

I also don't think the word "maniac" should necessarily be synonomous with "idiot". Even a maniac might be able to fold AJ, TT,88,77,66,etc. for a 3 bet on the turn, and you don't want that.

I guess the bottom line is that if you knew your opponent would give you an insane amount of action every time with all kinds of worse hands, then you should go ahead and make the re-raise. But don't forget.. Maniacs can make sets too, so you WILL be beaten some times and if he could fold a two out hand, I think you are better off just calling. IMO-

Re: 30-60 AA hand
 

you are 100% correct...depends on the type of maniac which well determine the likely probability distribution of his c-r turn holdings...the more maniacle the more possible holdings, the more likely you are to be ahead and reraise, cap, call & call his river bet and make a nice ev per play...but its the level of maniacleness that determines the ev in this b/c of those initial assumption figures.

anyway, to each his own [maniac] ;-)

-Barron

she would not 4 bet a worse hand
 

Imposible. She is a maniac but not a total idiot. When I three bet her preflop, she was well aware of the fact that I likely had a real hand. She will 4 bet any two pair or better on the turn, but nothing worse. If she has a draw, she will call my the bet and probably check fold the river. But, like I said, if I just call the turn, she will probably bet the river for me anyway, so it works out the same in that situation. The only way I get 4 bets is if she has a made hand that cannot beat aces. And I lose five bets if she can beat AA if I 3 bet the turn. I'm not confused, but I'm also not saying the 3 bet couldnt have been right.

Re: she would not 4 bet a worse hand
 

So you're telling me that any J or 9 or AcJc, KcJc, KhJh, or hands like QcTc, KcTc, (or KTo), etc that rivers a pair (and many more) check fold the river or is it you are complaining that there aren't a lot of hands like that? Also, the socalled maniac will not 4bet a 15 out hand on the turn because "she is not an idiot". Well, apparently, she's not a maniac either, and the reason she loves to makes moves on the turn (as you described) is because she is playing with a puppy who doesn't punish them. And if she'll only 4-bet a hand that beats AA, why do you need to call the river if you don't improve? Oh. And listen Focker. It doesn't workout the same because she may improve to a callable hand or based on the river card she may decide that a bluff is hopeless.

Re: she would not 4 bet a worse hand
 

This is the way I look at it. If she has a flush draw, she is certainly correct to call your raise. You will also no doubt feel obligated to pay off a flush card when it hits. So I think it comes down to how likely she is to continue betting a worse hand (including a busted draw) on the river. If she is very likely, then I think calling the turn makes more sense. IMO- Then again, if she's very likely to give you a silly amount of action with a hopeless hand on the turn, then you have to consider re-raising, but you have to know your player. Maniac doesn't always mean brain-dead and they are also capable of flopping sets just as often as the rest of us.

results
 

I agree entirely that is comes down to how likely she is to continue betting a worse hand. Also, I felt although she was a maniac, she was quite aware that I had not gotten out of line all game, and that there was good possiblity I held a big pair. So whe she checkraised, although it was possible she has something like a bare jack, I thought it was more likely she either flopped a very big hand, or she had a draw. I was almost positve she would lead into me again with a busted hand which is the main reason I just called. I called the turn, she bet the river, I called again and turned she over Q 10 for no pair.

Re: results
 

you really need to re-assess your use of the term 'maniac'. if this person will call or even reraise with a worse hand, it makes 3betting even better. i don't see what is difficult here.

Re: 30-60 AA hand
 

Why not consider what the maniac thinks you have? She could have as little as a medium pocket pair, and be determined to push you off overcards since rags flopped. I'd 3-bet for this hand, and to get the maniac off my back for future hands.

Re: 30-60 AA hand
 

If a maniac will fold top pair top kicker on the turn for an extra bet, I'll streak naked down the street with a lampshade over my head singing "My Heart Will Go On" by Celine Dion.

Pipedream

Re: 30-60 AA hand
 

The lampshade was a deal breaker.

Re: 30-60 AA hand
 

3 bet.

Re: results
 

[ QUOTE ]
i don't see what is difficult here.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difficulty is in assessing which sub-species of maniac he is dealing with. You are wrong to think all maniacs play identically and that none (who would bet again on the river), could ever fold a hopeless hand for 3 bets. So there is a decision to be made here in which play nets him the highest EV. If you in turn, refuse to differentiate from one maniac to the next, then I contend you are leaving some money on the table.

Re: results
 

it is his responsibility, not ours, to come up with his own analysis. it cannot be done by reading a post. if it is the STANDARD definition of maniac, it is an easy hand to play.

Re: results
 

If you do not 3-bet a maniac here, by any definition of a maniac except the fargin silly one, where maniacs fold TPTK on the turn and check raise and four bet the turn only with the nuts and then check fold when a draw rivers a pair, then you are leaving money on the table, moreover, you are wearing a skirt that would make Olivia DeHavilan blush, and you have sand in your crotchie and are tired of seeing draws get there, which is Okay, but let's just get that straight.

You defend the indefensible, and erect the strawman which is simultaneously a red herring that your detractors contest that all maniacs play identically.

Bosch and Bunkum.

The player had QTo, but it could have been T8o, JTo, or a certifiable monster like Th8h, or KhTh or... or... or... and yes, even, horrors, a set is not impossible. Somehow in this silly world, because one has 3-bet a maniac preflop, one must have AA and thereafter play the hand defensively as if it were face up, because, well, because we haven't gotten out of line all night and this particular maniac isn't stupid.

I suggest, perhaps the opponnent was merely a midlimit aggressive Asian, which may be redundant, but I'll leave that to others, and in any case, should still be 3-bet with a happy heart, or club, as the case may be.

You, sir, are a silly bunny.

Re: results
 

Let's look at it this way. He knows 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. You made one extra bet. Let's say you don't 3bet. She bluff bets the river, you call and take one extra bet. Results are the same, except for the fact you do not know she has QT and a draw on the turn. It could certainly be a strong possibility. But isn't the "standard" defition of a maniac, one that could have any two cards and will play them wild? AA isn't indestructable, as we all know. I believe with this particular hand, you are either going to lose many extra bets if you play it assuming the maniac has nothing when they have a hand, but don't make anything extra if you're right about them having nothing.
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.

Where\'s Dynasty?
 

He would scold you for being on the maniac's left. Good for you, you've waited 221 and now you get to play AA against 56s. And of course he is right.

It's this fact that keeps people fearing the juiciest games. They aren't set up to win huge pots w/ there best hands (cuz they are trying to isolate the maniac, instead of springboard him) and then they get jimmied off marginal hands.

Re: 30-60 AA hand
 

This three-bet is as automatic as my 15 foot jumpshot.

Re: 30-60 AA hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
This three-bet is as automatic as my 15 foot jumpshot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm. I wonder if that's anywhere as reliable as my 9 footer for birdie?

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.