Question for those with High SAT scores

[WhipMeBeatMe]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you should clearly 3-bet preflop. You should also have capped the flop.

Eh, I was gonna explain why, but I'm going to go to sleep instead. Maybe you can tell me... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure where I stand on capping preflop.

I actually like his call on the flop rather than capping. However, I'd go for a check-raise on the turn.

[scrub]

Atlantic City Community College
V: 800
M: 700

3-bet preflop--that's what maniacs are there for...
Failing that, cap the flop.

scrub

[stir]

I for one can't tell you why you should 3 bet preflop. Apparently my SAT wasn't high enough.

Once you've got some sleep, hope you will explain. Thanks.

[TiK]

A three bet preflop was definitely a must...especially considering that you could get the BB as well as UTG+1 to fold, ok, maybe not the UTG+1 but at least the BB. But a 3-bet with your hand is a must against a maniac.

U of Michigan, and Tulane U. here...

[DcifrThs]

im insulted. you've linked fallaciously university rankings and poker ability. some of the best players decided never to go to college (i dont know if GoT went but i think he at least graduated high school and his advice should be listened to...in addition ZeeJustin may or not have been to college). either way you can choose not to listen to what i think based on your prereqs: George Washington U. and about to start Washington University Olin school of business.

first off the preflop call i think can be a mistake. if you're in the bb it may be a bit closer since you can't fold yourself out (as you can fold out the bb from the sb and you certainly want the bb to fold here). also, if any caller will fold for 2 more you gain a lot. if not (since the maniac is raising everything and everybody is now calling with lots and not respecting reraises of the maniac's raise), then 3betting might not be the best line BUT it hink the pros of 3betting outweight the cons and your preflop call is probably a mistake.

on the flop the scariest thing in the world is that cold call of your checkraise (or it could mean he wants to see a showdown with a weaker hand since you can c'r the maniac lightly). i STILL think i'd cap the flop here as he either has a monster (and will call and you gain info from that), a good draw (56s which people play in party a lot) from which you extract more, or a weaker king which wants to see a showdown since you can c'r with less than a king b/c the maniac will be anything. if i were you i'd cap the flop and i can't see how its close vs. a call of the maniac's 3bet.

on the turn you are a little bit stuck here and i think capping the flop would have made it easier. it looks very much like you're looking at a set from the original cold caller of your c'r. i wouldn't want to pay 7 MORE bets to see a showdown but at the same time this is the kind of hand that is showdown bound b/c of the dynamics that change when playing with a maniac (others start fighting to get YOU OUT OF THE POT which could be what the cold caller is doing here with a hand you beat but that likely beats the maniac). i honestly don't feel qualified to answer this turn and river play question b/c part of me REALLY wants to fold to the likely(possible) set of 7's or 4s and the other part of me REALLY wants to see a showdown. (this deficiency is due to my lack of education at the holdem experience school, not my lack of education at MIT or Stanford).

but then again, you asked for specific schools to respond so you may not even listen to what i think...

-Barron

[MaxPower]

I thought about 3-betting pre-flop as my hand was probably best and I might as well destroy the implied odds of the limpers. In this particular case I didn't think either of the limpers would fold. That pushed me to just calling and trying to check-raise the flop. In retrospect, I see why 3-betting might have been better.

Not capping the flop was just really bad. I can't imagine why I didn't cap.

I ended up folding incorrectly on the turn (both of them had K2o) which probably wouldn't have happened if I have played the rest of the hand well.

This is my 1600th post which puts my in the Pooh-Bah category, but as you can see I don't deserve Pooh-Bah status. Pooh-Bah status is meaningless these days, there are people who have been on this site 2 months and have more posts than me. I think the classifications should be changed - I am not worthy.

For the record, I don't care what your SAT scores were and what college you went to. I'll even take advice from that college dropout Sklansky. I am a classic underacheiver and despite high intelligence I did not attend a prestigious school (SUNY Binghamton for undergrad and NYU for grad).

I've just started playing 15/30 and I'm sure I will make plenty of mistakes. I hope I can count on you guys to help me out. Thanks.

[soda]

I say cap the flop here and then lead out the turn. If you are raised here, you can shut down and call.

With 2 more bets coming back at you on the turn, I think you need to fold unless you have some doubt that you are beat.

soda

[soda]

I'm going to say that smooth calling preflop is the way to go. If you could isolate the maniac with a three bet, then the play could be correct, but I feel that in this situation, the UTG player is going to easily read your three bet as an attempt at isolation and call. Also the UTG player was cited as playing a lot of preflop hands, he's unlikely to fold for that reason as well. Couple this with ultra poor position and I think you can just try to play this hand cheaply unless you hit it on the flop.

soda

[Nate tha' Great]

I've been thinking about this hand some more. It's an interesting one.

First of all, preflop, I'm now even more convinced that 3-betting is correct. The presence of a maniac translates into really high implied odds for whomever hits his hand, and you'd like to have as few competitors for the maniac's dollars as you can. For that reason, even getting the BB out has a lot of advantages. And I have to think that there's at least a reasonable chance that one of the limpers is going to fold, because they know they're almost certainly going to be facing a cap. Playing one maniac and one 'normal' opponnent would be hugely better than playing against one maniac and three 'normal' opponents.

At the same time it's not like you lose the hand if it comes around capped four ways. You still have fair share and then some against the likely range of hands that you're facing, in a situation in which you're probably going to need to hit the board to win the pot anyway. So, if there's a compelling strategic reason to 3-bet (which there is), and a compelling strategic reason to call (which there is, although I don't think it's quite as compelling as the reason to 3-bet), a pretty darned good tiebreaker is that you're likely making some money immediately on the bets that go in preflop. Finally, your position is not all that bad on postflop streets, since you'll still likely have the chance to force the field to face two bets on the flop, and very possibily on the turn.

On the turn, the question now becomes just how much of a maniac this maniac is. One pattern that you'll see a lot with these guys is that they'll put almost any number of bets in preflop and the flop, but they'll turn into calling stations on the turn and the river, espeically if they're encountering resistence. This guy is now facing substantial resistance on a paired board with a K on it; you think he's 3-betting here with like A9 offsuit? If the answer is "yes", and it very well might be, then clearly you need to call down, but otherwise, well ...

...I think you might have a f-f-fold.

Your best hope (in the world in which the maniac needs some sort of hand to continue on) is that both players have a K with a weaker kicker. One problem with that is that it's a little bit mathematically unlikely. Even if you knew for example, that the maniac had KT, that wouldn't be unambiguously a good thing, since it makes it less likely that the other player had a K, and reduces your outs to effectively nothing in the event that he's ahead. There's also a realistic possibility that the *maniac* has a 7. Clearly, against two sane opponents, you'd have a fold, whereas against one sane opponent and one random hand, you'd need to call down ... the truth lies somewhere in between those two extremes, and the key factor is just how the maniac plays on the turn specifically.

[Ed Miller]

If you could isolate the maniac with a three bet, then the play could be correct, but I feel that in this situation, the UTG player is going to easily read your three bet as an attempt at isolation and call.

Huh? Most people wouldn't have any idea that you were trying an "isolation" play. Most people haven't even heard of an isolation play. You are projecting your own knowledge (both of poker concepts and specific knowledge about hero's hand) onto an ignorant fat hump.