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.