What games are best/worst for maniacs, calling stations, etc.?
 

I've recently started playing O8, and in over 9000 hands I can distinctly recall only two maniacs, both of whom busted out in less than 2 or 3 orbits. By contrast, 6-max limit holdem is packed with maniacs and semi-maniacs.

Of course, the reason for this is than maniacy is actually not that bad at short-handed holdem, as your opponents will often not have anything either and be forced to fold to your relentless aggression. Over the long run, the maniac will lose, but will probably last longer than your loose-passive calling station.

Whereas in O8, someone almost always hits something good, and firing away with nothing is a sure way to deplete your stack in a heartbeat.

So that got me thinking--of the most commonly played poker games--which are the best and worst for maniacs, calling stations, rocks, etc. For example, I would think a calling station would get slaughtered much quicker at NLHE than LHE, because his opponents can make him call much bigger bets with worse implied odds.

Thoughts?

Re: What games are best/worst for maniacs, calling stations, etc.?
 

PL O8 kills fishes pretty fast if there's a few sharks around.

I'd say the best game for fishes is probably PLO (or a limit omaha game. As many times as I've lost huge pots by runner runner I'd go with that. (unless they move allin with any flush of course)

For rocks, it's all about who's at the table not so much the game I think.

Calling stations--any form of limit poker because they're getting better odds to chase.

Re: What games are best/worst for maniacs, calling stations, etc.?
 

[ QUOTE ]
PL O8 kills fishes pretty fast if there's a few sharks around.

I'd say the best game for fishes is probably PLO (or a limit omaha game As many times as I've lost huge pots by runner runner I'd go with that. (unless they move allin with any flush of course)



[/ QUOTE ]

???

Re: What games are best/worst for maniacs, calling stations, etc.?
 

well full ring limit holdem games filled with calling stations are best for calling stations, as most often their calls are correct

Re: What games are best/worst for maniacs, calling stations, etc.?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PL O8 kills fishes pretty fast if there's a few sharks around.

I'd say the best game for fishes is probably PLO (or a limit omaha game As many times as I've lost huge pots by runner runner I'd go with that. (unless they move allin with any flush of course)



[/ QUOTE ]

???

[/ QUOTE ]

PL O8 is pot limit omaha hi/lo 8 or better

PLO is pot limit omaha hi only

Re: What games are best/worst for maniacs, calling stations, etc.?
 

Didn't see that, thank you.

Re: What games are best/worst for maniacs, calling stations, etc.?
 

these type of players exist at every level in every game. one just needs to know how to play against them.

Re: What games are best/worst for maniacs, calling stations, etc.?
 

Best game for:

Maniac (aka loose-aggressive): Big-ante game where one starting hand is seldom a huge favorite over another, where there is alot of potential for suckouts and where bluffing is not a crucial element - hi-only stud, hi-only Omaha or low draw (maybe razz) . . . NOT holdem, Omaha-8 or hi-draw

Calling station(aka loose-passive): HUGE ante game of any of those suggested above

Rock(aka tight-passive): Small ante draw or holdem (spread limit, PL or NL) -

Tight/aggressive(tight-aggressive): Any game you can think of

*

Reason #4,391 for learning the last approach [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

*

Re: loose-passive or [extremely] loose-aggressive

There really is no best game; those listed are the least-worst games. These two groups will lose at any game with any ante structure (paradoxically for opposite reasons) but they'll lose less (and more slowly) at the games/ante structures mentioned.

Finally
 

a game where EVERY player in it has a positive EV !

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

*

Reminds me of the guy who said that our society's basis for awarding credit is all wrong; instead of giving it to those who COULD pay it back we should give it to those who COULDN'T.

When told that this plan would bankrupt all banks and lending institutions he replied, "that's OK, if they go broke then THEY can get credit".

On second thought there could be something to his idea.

We're already doing it this way, aren't we. [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]