A few thought on Psychology of Poker

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Maniac A may fit your profile. Maniac B may be close. And Maniac C may have a very different profile.

More importantly, the ultimate reasons for other people's behavior are essentially irrelevant. I don't have to know why a person has chosen to play like a maniac to know how to beat him.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are Dr. Al's key points. Players and maniacs come in a multitude of different varieties and some maniacs are actually quite good at reading hands. These types play the players and are always looking to pounce on weakness and push other players off marginal hands. And the accumulation of all those stolen pots gives them a virtual freeroll to suckout with weak draws not warranted by pot odds. And like Dr. Al said, all you have to know is how to beat them, and of course how not to beat yourself. You only need to know why you do things, not why others do. To profit optimally, you want to change any destructive tendencies in yourself, and would really prefer that others don't.

[peritonlogon]

You get a mainac off his game by waiting for hands, raising him relentlessly, and isolating him. After you've won 2 or 3 big pots off the maniac, he will usually start fearing you and ususally folding to your raise, when this happens you start calling more with your good hands and raising with your marginal hands. If the maniac starts realizing that when you are raising your hands are no longer as strong and he stops betting into you when you call, he will usually revert back to his normal maniac self. You can often bust out a common maniac in no time using this simple strategy, unless you run into one or two suck outs in mega pots, then it will take longer. But the maniac strategy is usually not a strategy it's a reaction to moods (when they feel good, ie have been wining or stealing pots they bet and when they have not been they fold, or sometimes call) so beating is often the easiest way I can think to make a buck in poker.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, and no. I have seen them "clean up" for a few hours, a few days even, but watched these same people get completely destroyed just as fast as they cleaned up.


[/ QUOTE ]

You missed the point of my comment, so I will repost for you!

[ QUOTE ]
When playing against opponents that don't/can't adapt to their play, they simply clean up!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, when playing against opponents that do react appropriately to their play, the maniacs are long term losers.

[Warren Whitmore]

Thats all kind of interesting and may be true. It does not however help much when playing against them. I am certain what I am about to say may seem like an oversimplification but here goes.

Mike Caro once said "The people who win the most pots lose the most money." He is of course correct. Pavlovian influences push us all towards trying to win the pot (It "feels" good to win the pot just listen to any bad beat story and it is the central thesis). In my opinion a big part of being a mainiac is falling to Pavlov instead of rising to Caro.

[Warren Whitmore]

That is incorrect. To beat a mainiac you must play fewer heads up prefering hand which can win without improvement in a showdown. The only way to beat a mainiac it to play better heads up starting hands with him and isolate him.

Way off dude. A lot of times maniacs just want to blow off steam or have fun. I'm usually a 30/60 player but ocasionally I'll sit down with a friend at $1/2. I might play like a complete maniac for 30 minutes for the fun of seeing peoples' responses. I'm probably throwing away $10-20, definitely worth the entertainment value for me.

For a richer man, he might feel the same way sitting down at my $30/60 game or even $100/200. When the money doesn't matter to you, you can play poker the same way lots of people play basketball among friends - you might try a trick shot even though you know you'll rarely make it, because its fun.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Svar till:</font><hr />
Way off dude. A lot of times maniacs just want to blow off steam or have fun. I'm usually a 30/60 player but ocasionally I'll sit down with a friend at $1/2. I might play like a complete maniac for 30 minutes for the fun of seeing peoples' responses. I'm probably throwing away $10-20, definitely worth the entertainment value for me.

For a richer man, he might feel the same way sitting down at my $30/60 game or even $100/200. When the money doesn't matter to you, you can play poker the same way lots of people play basketball among friends - you might try a trick shot even though you know you'll rarely make it, because its fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems u are in need of feling powerfull then. Do i dont belive the first issue can fit all maniacs it probebly fits u.

I belive maniacs are a heterogenic group and can´t be placed into a box. Some of the decription in the first issue probebly fits a few maniacs.

[davet]

So, in wrap, it's best to see a maniac as some sort of mathematical abberation.

I would like to point out to Dr. Al that I did like his book, and look foreward to reading his new one. For better or worse, there is usually much misinterpretation in critiques, where direct opinions are not to be expressed.

I also realize that psychology is a "soft" science, and correct, pigeon- holing all people is rather foolish. I did point out that in my original post that this was to be a different line of thinking, though not contradictory.

Even I have to admit that this post has to die soon.

Thank you all for your thoughts.