three hands against one maniac
 

80 live against a psyhco lady who clearly just gambles up laggy constantly from several hands ive seen. she loves to openraise whenever it's folded to her and loves to bet whenever checked to regardless of her cards. she has strong when weak tells with her betting.

hand 1 i get KdTd in hijack, she openraises, i 3 bet, she calls. the flop is Qd7h3c. she checks, i bet, she checkraises real strong/fast like. i call. the turn is 6d. she bets, i call. the river is a 4h. she bets, i call.

hand 2 a generally sort of tight mediocre guy openraises from hijack, she 3 bets, i call in the bb w/ Ad2d planning to bet most flops. raiser calls. 3 of us. the flop is Kh9d3c. i bet, hijack folds, she calls. the turn is Ts. i decide to check-call her down regardless of what comes. i check, she obliges and bets, i call. the river is an 8c, i check-call.

hand 3. i get 6c4c in the bb. she openraises on the button i call. the flop is 6h5d2d. i checkraise, she 3 bets, i 4 bet. im planning to put at least 12 bets in on the flop, but she just calls. the turn is a Q. i bet, she raises, i call. the river is a K, i check-call.

Re: three hands against one maniac
 

[ QUOTE ]
im planning to put at least 12 bets in on the flop

[/ QUOTE ]

fresh like misted lettuce [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: three hands against one maniac
 

Is this for real? Hands 1 and 2? In hand 2, what do you beat? In hand 1, if you're that determined, raise the river or something, she may fold KJ.

Re: three hands against one maniac
 

i really think you should raise the turn in hand one. and check it behind if you miss.

Re: three hands against one maniac
 

I pretty much play these the same way as u, given your read. Only exception, Hand 1...think about popping turn. I mean, if she is really that crazy to 3bet with a worse hand, then call down.

Hand 2, I like the c/c approach from the turn and on, as she will raise a decent amount of air, while almost never taking the free card.

Hand 3 preflop -- I like the move. Close imo. Id have no idea what Id do until the action got to me. Postflop is good though.

Re: three hands against one maniac
 

[ QUOTE ]
i really think you should raise the turn in hand one. and check it behind if you miss.

[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds like this player will bet the river.

Re: three hands against one maniac
 

A player who will bet nearly 100% of the time when checked to should be called down often. So I think blackjacks, A-xs, and K-Q go up in value against this type of player. But K-T and 6-4 are trouble hands.

In hand 1, the raise-the-flush-draw-on-the-turn ploy works much less than it used to, as you and others have pointed up here before. I think I prefer not to raise the turn, since she'd then not put you on a flush if you happen to get there on the river and you could make oodles of bets.

On hand 3, I don't understand why you would want to put "at least 12" bets in on the flop. Just too many ways to get turned or rivered. Or maybe I just misunderstand the meaning of your post title. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: three hands against one maniac
 

Hand 1: I fold preflop, but yeah if you're gonna play then I like the 3-bet. I'd just rather have an ace or a pocket pair to make that play from 3 off the button. I don't really like the calldown either, that flop is pretty dry, no real draws.....you're hoping she is on complete air?

Hand 2: Again, I probably fold preflop, and I'm done with the hand on that flop. You are 3-way with just a couple backdoor draws.

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the way to beat a maniac gamber to wait until you have something to showdown before you go to war with them. You know they are not going to backoff so why not give yourself a decent ace, or a pair before you get involved?

Hand 3: Yes, obviously get to showdown, but 12 bets on the flop is a bit extreme. If goes more than 4 bets you are probably way behind, or she has a lot of outs against you and may even be a favorite over your 1 pair.

Re: three hands against one maniac
 

I told you that you play well, my friend. I'm just going to say "ditto what this guy says." I may be able to stop posting in the future if you keep this up.

Re: three hands against one maniac
 

Hand 1:
Will she fold A-high if you raise turn and bet the end? If not I like the line somewhat... but even against the laggiest of opponents it is tough to show a profit calling down with K-high

Hand 2:
I don't like this hand. There is not much you can beat here. I would probably fold this hand. Even lags wake up to a hand every now and then.

Hand 3: Bad turn and river, but a call down is probably in order here as well.

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.

Re: three hands against one maniac
 

"you aren't that far ahead of a random hand"

so on a board of 632 with 64 against a random hand im not far enough ahead to want to get a lot of money in? can you show your work please?

Re: three hands against one maniac
 

Your editing destroys what I said.

You are nearly 7:3 against a random hand, ie, better than 2:1.

Re: three hands against one maniac
 

ok let's start over then. i didnt understand what you said.

for starters you said:

"The contrarian point (which isn't valid, of course)"

and i assumed you were being sarcastic. were you?

Re: three hands against one maniac
 

Maybe sarcastic is the right word because of the "of course." I'm not sure. My point was to introduce something you hadn't thought about, even though it is effectively irrelevant -- by which I mean, either in point of fact or at least for the point of this discussion, my observation has no weight, because you know what you know. So before introducing that fact, I was conceding, "this doesn't matter."

Given that she is 2+:1 dog with a random hand. If she gives you 4 bets with such a hand, and goes to 12 when she's better, well, you aren't doing so well. And if she pops you legitimately on the turn, you've lost the profit from the flop. I kind of assume that she either rivered you with Q5o or you won the hand and are kicking yourself for not trying to get more value by re-popping her meaningless turn raise.

Re: three hands against one maniac
 

Where is this game? They don't spread 80 at OC11 now do they? Last time I was there it was only 20-40.

In regards to your posts, all I have to say is what is wrong with this lady? I think you are pushing your small edges hard which I like in limit HE. 12 bets on the flop is a lot. I'd put in 6-8 bets if she is really this nutty. What were the results?

Brian R

Re: three hands against one maniac
 

no she beat me. she hit a Q on the turn fair and square.

Re: three hands against one maniac
 

"What were the results?"

i lost all three hands and she was way out of line in 2 of the 3 hands.

Re: three hands against one maniac
 

"not putting in a lot of bets with my hand here against someone willing to completely overplay as little as one overcard is an error."

It's hard to have only one overcard on that board. Anyway, there's no reason to post a hand if you're playing against a player who will put in eleven bets with one overcards.

I guess what I'm saying is that there is reason to overplay some hand if your opponent will put in twelve bets on the flop with a pair of sixes.

Re: three hands against one maniac
 

"Anyway, there's no reason to post a hand"

yeah im realising that more and more thread after thread.

Re: three hands against one maniac
 

I agree with a lot of this. I'm okay with the preflop 3-bet preflop in hand 1, but calling the check-raise on the flop is dubious at best.

Hand 3 was played well, but I would plan on stopping around 5-6 bets with this opponent.

Re: three hands against one maniac
 

how on earth can i fold to a c/r on the flop in hand 1 getting 10.5 to 1 with backdoor backdoor overcard and possible best hand closing action in position?

also how wretchedly weak/loose/bad is that going to look to the rest of the table? i might as well just pin a bullseye to my forehead.

Re: three hands against one maniac
 

This is twice in the same thread you've twisted someone out of context. I assume it's simply being carelessness/inconsiderate, and I ask that you be more careful.

Re: three hands against one maniac
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is twice in the same thread you've twisted someone out of context. I assume it's simply being carelessness/inconsiderate, and I ask that you be more careful.

[/ QUOTE ]
dude, no1 is impressed. just give it up.

Re: three hands against one maniac
 

I figured as much on hand 1 that she never folds A-high... it was more of a rhetorical question. However, if you are confident you have the best hand on the turn as well as the best draw... shouldn't you raise for value?

I take it you won hand 2? Irregardless of the results... A-2 is a tough hand to play profitably against this opponent.

results
 

im gonna stop posting hands. for better or for worse, im just too convinced that i play my hands right so it makes it a waste of time for everyone. when i have a real question about a hand or a concept i just call gabe and straighten it out (or argue with him till he gets sick of me).

i lost all three hands. in hand 1 she had K5 and rivered a straight. in hand 2 she had 87 and rivered a pair. in hand 3 she caught a Q on the turn.

Re: results
 

[ QUOTE ]
im gonna stop posting hands. for better or for worse, im just too convinced that i play my hands right so it makes it a waste of time for everyone. when i have a real question about a hand or a concept i just call gabe and straighten it out (or argue with him till he gets sick of me).

i lost all three hands. in hand 1 she had K5 and rivered a straight. in hand 2 she had 87 and rivered a pair. in hand 3 she caught a Q on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please don't ever stop posting hands. Even though you have to deal with crap like you did in this thread, I hope you gained insight into the corectness of your play by reading what you think are wrong responses and thus solidifying your thoughts. And sometimes people do make helpful comments. Finally, while this isn't really of benefit to you, there are young players lurking in the background learning from your hands.

Re: results
 

This would suck. This thread turned into "mike l defending his read" which is just crap and useless for everyone.

I can see your point though why deal with that if you can just call Gabe and get the one on one attention. On the otherhand I've always enjoyed most of your posts and you leaving would decrease the value of the forums!

Re: results
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've always enjoyed most of your posts and you leaving would decrease the value of the forums!

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: results
 

[ QUOTE ]
im gonna stop posting hands. for better or for worse, im just too convinced that i play my hands right so it makes it a waste of time for everyone. when i have a real question about a hand or a concept i just call gabe and straighten it out (or argue with him till he gets sick of me).

i lost all three hands. in hand 1 she had K5 and rivered a straight. in hand 2 she had 87 and rivered a pair. in hand 3 she caught a Q on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't know me since I only lurk here, but I'm just going to tell you now that you are one of my favorite posters and I've learned a lot from your posts. I hope you change your decision about leaving the forum

Re: results
 

"I hope you change your decision about leaving the forum"

im not gonna leave im just not gonna post my own hands anymore.