[Post-Oak]

From the action, we can see that Maniac had $765 and Hero had him covered. The stacks are 150+ X the BB.

My first reaction was the same as the initial posters who considered the whole hand ridiculous. I was shocked to see cero_z's post.

I think the problem here is that you are supposed to be dealing with a proven maniac. If we look at this hand in a vaacuum, you misplayed it on every street. But if we consider you are up against a maniac, the hand becomes understandable.

A maniac is not just a typical loose, aggressive player. They take it to another level. They are all complete and total fish. They can run up big wins over the short term, but they get killed by the patient, reasonable players over the long term. And short term is REALLY short term with them, because even when they build big stacks, they usually give it all away in the same session.

Was this guy a true maniac? Would he call off large portions of his stack with gargbage hands because he wants to see the flop? Would he reraise a turn raise with nothing? Is it impossible to tell what 2 cards he has?

Personally, I like to take the low variance route and not mix it up with maniacs unless I have a relatively big hand. For example, playing a low pair for set value is a great strategy against a maniac. The key is that you don't have to be up against AA or KK to get his whole stack. He will bet and raise with 8J as if he had AA.

I realize that employing this strategy means that most of the time you will watch other players take all of the maniac's money. I guess it is an issue of how much variance you want to accept. It is possible to call a maniac down with a single pair on a scary board and still win. I see it done online all the time against true maniacs. Your bet on the river and his subsequent all-in is another thing. I don't think he has nothing here. He should have something. But at this point it is too late to fold here (against a maniac).

My advice:

Fold to the initial preflop raise to $15.

Call the raise to $40 because all of the nits who folded after paying 15 have built the pot and it is only 25 to you.

Call the flop bet (it is only 25, and the pot is already 150). I don't raise to see where I'm at, because a maniac will reraise with nothing. You can not see where you are at, which is why I try to avoid these types of hands against maniacs in the first place.

I would call the turn too. You still have a pair of J and now you have a flush draw. Of course, this would be a big "so what" against a reasonable opponent. Against a maniac, there is a good chance you are ahead. It is impossible to know. Basically, you have been sucked in by several factors. Your opponent is wildly unpredictable. The pot has been large compared to his bets on every street.

River I bet and call his all-in.

Looks like a very uncomfortable confrontation with a maniac. I try to avoid these kind of extremely high variance face offs in favor of just nut peddling against them (and two pair can practically be considered the nuts considering what they show down). In this instance you have just played a very big pot with a hand that would not warrant any of these calls against a reasonable opponent.

One thing I want to note is that some maniacs sometimes can give a hint to the size of their hand by how much they bet. Was his bet of 25 on the flop (100 already in the pot) typical of his "here let me bet with nothing and watch you fold" or was this a small bet for him? I find that many maniacs actually slow down a little with big hands. This is insanely stupid, since the one benefit of being this kind of fish is that people just have to pay your big hands off. But these are terrible poker players, so it should be no surprise that many maniacs suddenly slow down when they have a monster.

My recomendation is that you fold preflop for the first 13 to call. The rest is highly dependent, because it is so hard to tell with a maniac. Again, all of this analysis only make sense if player is a TRUE maniac.

Maybe you should describe him to us more.