Isolating a maniac

DavidC · #1 08-13-2005, 02:14 AM

(full ring scenario)

Here's something that I'm not comfortable with.

It's folded to a LAG (60/25) in mp2.

LAG raises.

You're in MP3.

----------------------------------

There's some variables at play here (some of them have been set out in our scenario already, but they still deserve consideration)...

1) How tight are the guys to your left? How observant are they? Have they realized that you've been three-betting with less than premium hands in an effort to isolate this guy? How are they dealing with this (by raising with somewhat less than premium hands, by getting frustrated, or by cold-calling three bets a lot with somewhat less than premium hands, are they getting tricky, etc.)?

2) How likely is it that the LAG is noticing that you're playing back at him with less than awesome hands?

3) How likely is it that you're going to "break your lag" by doing this to him repeatedly?

4) What are your cards (always important)?

5) How close are you to the button?

6) How many limpers are there? Also, what kind of limpers are they (are they tightish limpers who will fold a hand like AJo if it's two bets back to them, because that's great!)?

7) How likely is the LAG to reraise?

-----

How do these variables affect your decisions? How many of them are important, and how practical is it to try to use all these details in making your decision? Am I missing any key pieces of information here?

(For the purposes of discussion, let's assume that our lag is quite a bit too aggressive post-flop, that he will go nuts with draws and weakish made hands, and that he has a tendancy to pay too much when behind: he's a maniac, not a thinking lag).

Whoops, I forgot a key point: RAKE!

detruncate · #2 08-13-2005, 04:25 AM

You should be looking to isolate him as often as possible. A prereq is that that you need a hand that figures to be a favourite. You're also presumably able to outplay him post flop.

Let's see... you obviously need to consider the chances of actually getting HU -- we have to have a stronger hand if pots are ending up mulitway.

We don't much care if maniac notices we're isolating him -- we're starting as a favourite + we'll extract more value on average post flop. How does he adjust in a way that hurts us short of slowing way down? We're content to let him take small pots off us. We're going to take big pots off him. Sometimes he out draws us. More times we win.

We don't worry about breaking our maniac. We're not going to cure the underlying disorder by winning a few hands. Sooner or later he'll revert to type.

We favour hands that have good showdown value. As the chances of isolation increase, we get to think HU + dead blind money, which means we can play a whack of hands.

How close to the button is part of the likelihood of getting HU. Relative position to the maniac is just as important. We like him on our left if he's a true maniac and we're playing multiway pots, but we prefer him on our right if we're going to be able to frequently isolate him.

Limpers change things significantly . We're now looking for powerhouse hands + good mulitway hands. We also have to worry about hurting our implied odds with speculative hands. Trapped players are much more likely to call more bets, but you're right that decent players might be able to find a fold facing two more bets. Bear in mind that good players will recognize that you're likely to be 3-betting lighter than usual.

We're not concerned about getting reraised when we're better than 50% to be a favourite. Multiway it's a concern and we have to adjust accordingly.

Rake really shouldn't be much of a factor. Price of doing business.

And that's the best I can do without trying to write something significantly longer.

DavidC · #3 08-13-2005, 04:50 AM

Thanks for the response! When I get sick of grinding out my bonus I'll post my take on this, too.

In the meantime, just to prove I'm a nit...

[ QUOTE ]
Rake really shouldn't be much of a factor. Price of doing business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rake affects HOW we do business.

Basically, the higher the % of the pot that is raked, the better our hands have to be before we can profitably play them.

I'm sure your aware of this.

I'm not sure of the precise effects of rake, but Miller does mention it in SSHE.

Aaron W. · #4 08-13-2005, 12:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
In the meantime, just to prove I'm a nit...

[ QUOTE ]
Rake really shouldn't be much of a factor. Price of doing business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rake affects HOW we do business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. The amount you get off of a maniac far exceeds what you lose to a rake.

detruncate · #5 08-13-2005, 02:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the meantime, just to prove I'm a nit...

[ QUOTE ]
Rake really shouldn't be much of a factor. Price of doing business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rake affects HOW we do business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. The amount you get off of a maniac far exceeds what you lose to a rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I was thinking. Ed mentions rake in the context of blind stealing, presumably vs an average player most of the time. Our maniacal friend can be expected to routinely spew many chips.