Please pick this one apart (99 vs maniac)

Sterno · #1 09-22-2004, 10:27 AM

Paradise Poker No-Limit Hold'em, $0.50 BB (8 handed) converter

The guy to my right has been a complete maniac. I've only been sitting at this table for 10 hands, and he's already thrown away $120 on ridiculous bluffs and draws (like drawing for a pair with one over). So I was hoping to get heads up against him with my 99. Good strategy, or bad? Would it make more sense to wait until I'm a bigger favorite? I normally play the $10 table, which plays a bit different than the $50. I also usually don't get involved like this with medium pocket pairs. Anyway...

BB ($122.25)
UTG ($16.00)
UTG+1 ($22.25)
MP1 ($56.75)
MP2 ($55.00)
CO (Maniac) ($49.50)
Hero ($47.75)
SB ($29.75)

Preflop: Hero is Button with 9[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. SB posts a blind of $0.25.
UTG folds, UTG+1 folds, MP1 calls $0.50, MP2 folds, CO (Maniac) calls $0.50, Hero raises to $3, SB (poster) folds, BB folds, MP1 calls $2.50, CO (Maniac) calls $2.50.

I knew the Maniac was coming along for $3... if too many others came along (or reraised), I was giving up right there, short of flopping a cheap set.

Flop: ($9.75) 8[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (3 players)
MP1 checks, Maniac bets $6, Hero raises to $20, MP1 folds, Maniac calls $14.

Hrm. Could be worse. The maniac has bet every single flop he's seen, so this gives me no info. I figured I had to raise to drive out MP1 (and hell, hopefully the maniac too), and give it up if MP1 called or raised. Would a smaller raise have been better here? Should I expect MP1 to call with anything short of AT? For that matter, should I only expect him to call with an overpair or better? I'd only been at the table for 10 hands, but I hadn't seen him get involved in any pots yet. Anyway, would definitely like to hear comments on this raise.

Also: If Maniac had pushed behind my raise, would the correct move have been to fold or call?

Turn: ($49.75) J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (2 players)
Maniac checks, Hero bets $24.75, Maniac calls $24.75.

Now I'm a little worried about another over coming out, since overs are what I put the maniac on, but I at least picked up the OESD. I figured that given my play to this point, I had no choice but to push. Correct?

River: ($99.25) 2[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (2 players)

Final Pot: $99.25
Main Pot: $99.25, between Maniac and Hero.

Tilt · #2 09-22-2004, 11:41 AM

This is not the way i like to play maniacs. I love to seek and destroy maniacs. But not like this.

Preflop: Why raise at all at that level? Your hand is not a monster. 99 is best kept hidden against maniacs in the hopes that you flop a set while they get an overcard. Depending on how you have been playing, he now knows you have a pair. So he knows he can try and scare you off the pot if the board looks flushy or connected. If you are going to raise make it bigger, though I don't reccomend it. I'd say limp here and hope for a set against players like these.

Flop: Smart maniacs disguise their bets, so you probably have no read on what he has from his $6. But he knows what you have. You announced AQ or AK or big pair pre-flop, and now with the raise against the rainbow you narrowed it down to JJ-AA. Hes slightly frightened of trips. How delighted he'll be to find out its 99!

I think the maniac has trips or QQ-AA at this point himself. At least he has top pair. He has been passive - not maniacal on this hand, and most maniacs won't do this unless they have a huge hand. I don't think its a draw, because most maniacs bet or raise their draws.

Turn: He checks. Uh-oh. Thats a maniac tell for sure. He has a monster. So you push? Who is the maniac now? He has done to you what maniacs love to do - make you into a maniac - so that he can turn tight passive at the right moment. You just pushed with middle pair and OESD against a player who has been calling your large bets. Is that really your game?

Some maniacs are really just crazy people seeing how long it takes to throw away their stack. Their morons or on tilt from a higher level. That breed is rare. Much more common is the maniac seeking to trap you like i think this one has.

At these levels its best to hide in the weeds with good hidden hands and jump all over these guys when the time is right. Patience. Seek cheap flops without huge hands when you can get them. Play suited connectors more often and make small raises with them to disguise them. Avoid A and K hands unless joined or at least one gap. And hide your pairs until the moment is right. Thats how you bust these guys I think.

Sterno · #3 09-22-2004, 11:50 AM

That's pretty much exactly what I thought after it was all over. I don't think I'll ever be playing like that again.

However, he flipped over Q8o for a pair of 8's, and I took down the pot. This was the 12th (and last) hand I played with him, but it's right in line with how he'd played the previous hands he'd shown down with. His first hand at the table was 72o for a raise, where he threw away $30 seeing a showdown with his bottom pair, bottom kicker (he hit 7's on the flop). Is "maniac" the wrong term for this guy? Maybe I have my terminology wrong.

Regardless, I do think it was pretty terrible play on my part. My play seemed to bank upon everyone else at the table having crap AND the maniac not hitting anything higher than 9's. Not good odds, there. I had a minor concern that the maniac wouldn't be around much more (he'd already lost a stack and a half in 11 hands) so I wanted to hit him before he was gone, but I still think it was a huge gamble to take. A queen on that flop would have destroyed me, because I probably wouldn't have played it differently, assuming it was the only over.

I've still got a lot to learn. Thanks for the comments.

Tilt · #4 09-22-2004, 12:15 PM

I guess I've got a lot to learn! That was the most charitable breed of maniac looking to see how quickly he can lose his stack. If he showsdown pretty much every prior hand then maybe taking 99 to the felt was the right play? I don't know - i just like to be more certain and play with less volatility. I'd love to find that guy though. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Sterno · #5 09-22-2004, 12:19 PM

I still think it was terrible play on my part, but I'll definitely be looking for this guy the next time I sit down at the $50 NL table.

(and after seeing me play that hand, I bet a few people at the table would love to sit down with me again)

amoeba · #6 09-22-2004, 01:35 PM

you might find a maniac that is so charitable that he raises with 27o, but then, he might play the same way with AA so you never know.

Centrist · #7 09-22-2004, 02:40 PM

In this case, you've got a maniac who limps on the flop, at least some of the time. And you have position on him. The easiest way to beat him is to limp with him, bide your time, and once you have your good hand let his aggression kill him. You might even consider limping every hand, as something as good as two pair is probably enough to give you reasonable confidence against his average raising hand.

I had the opposite situation the other night. The maniac was on my immediate left, and he was raising every hand to between $3 and $6 preflop (at a $50 table). No cheap flops with this guy.

I wasn't confident I could beat him playing out of position, and for a raise, except of course when I had a premium starting hand. I figured anything else played into his aggression, because he would always bet and I would usually miss my hand on the flop.

I did something weird, which I wasn't confident was right, and which I reanalyzed a few times over the course of about 200 hands. I waited until I had a pretty big starting hand -- something in the range of AA-JJ and AK -- and I limp reraised for my whole stack.

This surprised him and got him to chattering at me. It also gave him an easy strategy for beating me if only he played with a little discipline (which I suspected he was incapable of doing). All he had to do was fold to my all-ins until he had AA or KK, and then take me down.

What he did was what seemed to him no doubt like "tight" play. He called me with good to mediocre-ish hands, folded the rest. I saw AK once, but I also saw A7s, KJo, AJ, and the like.

We went to war about 4 times over the course of these 200 hands, and in every case I had the best starting hand. The worst (for me) was a near coin flip when I had JJ vs. his AK. He beat me that hand, and, curiously, seemed to think I had made a big blunder by going in with him.

We basically split our all-in war -- he won two and I won two. But that's only because he got lucky. At the end of it, I feel I clearly had the edge.

I also popped him on one of the rare hands when he limped. He limped about maybe 5 times during this 200 hand sequence -- why I could not say. But I got lucky to pick up a flush draw, and for him to get "tricky" on me and slow play his 2 pair, which let me make the flush on the turn ... to check to him ... and to find him firing at me.

I also played some low pocket pairs against his smaller $3 rasies a few times, but those never worked out. I thought it was especially +EV after I had doubled up, even if it didn't work out.

Tilt · #8 09-22-2004, 03:47 PM

Centrist - that is similar to a atrategy that I have contemplated taht I will call "short stacking the maniac". Since most of the maniac's upside comes from getting you to fold post flop or on the turn, I have wondered whether you could take that leverage away from him by keeping a short stack.

Lets say you buy in to .25/.5 NL max $25 with $5. You play super tight, and any time you get premium cards, you go all in when against the maniac. You always therefore see the river, without making tough decisions on his crazy raises later on. DO you think this strategy has +EV? I understand the other players may not be maniacal, but if you theoretically had a table of maniacs, what about then?

Centrist · #9 09-22-2004, 04:01 PM

Hmmm. I think if you played short-stacked -- say, about twice his usual raise amount -- you could go in on him with a much wider range of hands, not just premiums.

In this case, he would call my reraise all-ins only with far better than his average hands, since my bet was so high. But if you reraise him with twice his usual raise, he's almost forced to call with anything due to pot odds.

I bet that strategy works better than mine did, when you're out of position against the maniac. The only problem is when you start to win a few hands -- then you have a medium-ish stack and have to tighten up. Or perhaps to still reraise him for twice or three times his raise, and leave a little behind for a push on the flop.

What you have, I think, is a great strategy for initial play when out of position against a pre-flop maniac. You could use it to build your stack (perhaps rebuying a few times before you manage it), and then switch strategies once you've built it. Or leave with your profits. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]