30-60 AA hand

[gaylord focker]

Imposible. She is a maniac but not a total idiot. When I three bet her preflop, she was well aware of the fact that I likely had a real hand. She will 4 bet any two pair or better on the turn, but nothing worse. If she has a draw, she will call my the bet and probably check fold the river. But, like I said, if I just call the turn, she will probably bet the river for me anyway, so it works out the same in that situation. The only way I get 4 bets is if she has a made hand that cannot beat aces. And I lose five bets if she can beat AA if I 3 bet the turn. I'm not confused, but I'm also not saying the 3 bet couldnt have been right.

[shemp]

So you're telling me that any J or 9 or AcJc, KcJc, KhJh, or hands like QcTc, KcTc, (or KTo), etc that rivers a pair (and many more) check fold the river or is it you are complaining that there aren't a lot of hands like that? Also, the socalled maniac will not 4bet a 15 out hand on the turn because "she is not an idiot". Well, apparently, she's not a maniac either, and the reason she loves to makes moves on the turn (as you described) is because she is playing with a puppy who doesn't punish them. And if she'll only 4-bet a hand that beats AA, why do you need to call the river if you don't improve? Oh. And listen Focker. It doesn't workout the same because she may improve to a callable hand or based on the river card she may decide that a bluff is hopeless.

[Kevin J]

This is the way I look at it. If she has a flush draw, she is certainly correct to call your raise. You will also no doubt feel obligated to pay off a flush card when it hits. So I think it comes down to how likely she is to continue betting a worse hand (including a busted draw) on the river. If she is very likely, then I think calling the turn makes more sense. IMO- Then again, if she's very likely to give you a silly amount of action with a hopeless hand on the turn, then you have to consider re-raising, but you have to know your player. Maniac doesn't always mean brain-dead and they are also capable of flopping sets just as often as the rest of us.

[gaylord focker]

I agree entirely that is comes down to how likely she is to continue betting a worse hand. Also, I felt although she was a maniac, she was quite aware that I had not gotten out of line all game, and that there was good possiblity I held a big pair. So whe she checkraised, although it was possible she has something like a bare jack, I thought it was more likely she either flopped a very big hand, or she had a draw. I was almost positve she would lead into me again with a busted hand which is the main reason I just called. I called the turn, she bet the river, I called again and turned she over Q 10 for no pair.

[astroglide]

you really need to re-assess your use of the term 'maniac'. if this person will call or even reraise with a worse hand, it makes 3betting even better. i don't see what is difficult here.

[Kevin J]

[ QUOTE ]
i don't see what is difficult here.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difficulty is in assessing which sub-species of maniac he is dealing with. You are wrong to think all maniacs play identically and that none (who would bet again on the river), could ever fold a hopeless hand for 3 bets. So there is a decision to be made here in which play nets him the highest EV. If you in turn, refuse to differentiate from one maniac to the next, then I contend you are leaving some money on the table.

[astroglide]

it is his responsibility, not ours, to come up with his own analysis. it cannot be done by reading a post. if it is the STANDARD definition of maniac, it is an easy hand to play.

[shemp]

If you do not 3-bet a maniac here, by any definition of a maniac except the fargin silly one, where maniacs fold TPTK on the turn and check raise and four bet the turn only with the nuts and then check fold when a draw rivers a pair, then you are leaving money on the table, moreover, you are wearing a skirt that would make Olivia DeHavilan blush, and you have sand in your crotchie and are tired of seeing draws get there, which is Okay, but let's just get that straight.

You defend the indefensible, and erect the strawman which is simultaneously a red herring that your detractors contest that all maniacs play identically.

Bosch and Bunkum.

The player had QTo, but it could have been T8o, JTo, or a certifiable monster like Th8h, or KhTh or... or... or... and yes, even, horrors, a set is not impossible. Somehow in this silly world, because one has 3-bet a maniac preflop, one must have AA and thereafter play the hand defensively as if it were face up, because, well, because we haven't gotten out of line all night and this particular maniac isn't stupid.

I suggest, perhaps the opponnent was merely a midlimit aggressive Asian, which may be redundant, but I'll leave that to others, and in any case, should still be 3-bet with a happy heart, or club, as the case may be.

You, sir, are a silly bunny.

[bomblade]

Let's look at it this way. He knows she has QT and just picked up an 8 outer. You still 3 bet? Let's say you do. She puts in one extra bet. River is a black, she check folds. You made one extra bet. Let's say you don't 3bet. She bluff bets the river, you call and take one extra bet. Results are the same, except for the fact you do not know she has QT and a draw on the turn. It could certainly be a strong possibility. But isn't the "standard" defition of a maniac, one that could have any two cards and will play them wild? AA isn't indestructable, as we all know. I believe with this particular hand, you are either going to lose many extra bets if you play it assuming the maniac has nothing when they have a hand, but don't make anything extra if you're right about them having nothing.
One last thing. Kevin J is absolutely correct when he says there are many types and degrees of maniac. To try and put all maniacs into one category will be costly.