it's so much easier to just make one decision

[broken_downstem]

Joe, I'm still slightly confused. If you were playing heads up then of course, but at a full table where you know the maniac is going to 3-bet then what good does raising do? Limp-reraising creates a nice large pot (since you know he is going to raise) whereas raising causes much of the table to be faced with 3 bets. This means most will fold, but since the 3-bet came from a maniac it is unlikely the pot will be heads-up as people become very loose in the presence of such a player. This means you probably will have a 3-4 handed pot, which straddles the ambiguous middle ground between large/multiway and small/short-handed which are the two ideal situations for suited broadway cards.

Even if the above analysis is wrong, mike still made it seem in his post that the reason he raised was not the maniac alone, but something about the table. I don't mean to switch the topic of the thread to how to play with a fish, I am just curious what was up with the table.

[mike l.]

i wasnt sure the guy would 3 bet, every now and then he would just cold call a raise. maybe 50% of the time. sometimes he'd cold call and then someone else would 3 bet and then he'd decide to cap it. it was like that, pretty random.

the two reasons i raised were this:

--there were two mediocre players who were trying to play good who would to some extent respect my raise and fold hands they should call with.

--the other players were ignoring all raises and coming in with hands like 43o that i really wanted to be in a raised pot against. in fact it was a real anomaly in retrospect that this hand ended up heads up preflop.

[Joe Tall]

Given Mike's strong image, his UTG raise is going to scream strength on most days. Especially at a tigher table where players are taking turns isolating the feeder. Then, toss in a likely 3-bet from a maniac, that gives Mike's hand headroom, whereas the others know he sure has a hand they donot want to get involved with, effectively, Mike plays the maniac heads-up. Where he wants to be, even more with the wild one short-stacked. An isolation out of position so to speak.

Maybe I'm high on a Saturday night. Maybe.

Welcome to the forum,
Joe Tall

[stinkypete]

this is an obvious case of an entirely read dependent play, and nobody here can tell you what the correct thing to do is without that read.

i'm bored, so i'll do some math for fun.

obviously, your all-in play is correct if you know your expected value going all-in is greater than your expected value taking a flop at 5 bets (this could be some other number, of course, but lets assume the optimal is either all-in or 5 bets to simplify).

the correct play depends on the following factors:

a) your opponent's possible holdings.
b) how much better than your opponent you play post-flop.
c) the size of your stacks.

let's say his stack is 10BB (and yours is bigger, as i'm sure it was).

let's also say that based on the hands you believe he'd be willing to go all in with, you're a 60/40 favourite. i assume this is at least somewhat reasonable based on your read.

in this case, your all-in EV is .6*10 - .4* 10 = 2BB.

now, the obvious question is what's your EV if you take a flop at 5 preflop bets? i have no idea how to begin evaluating/estimating this.

EDIT: i just re-read your post and realized that your opponent had only 4.75BB. in other words, you'd need to have an EV of about 1BB or more on the hand to make calling the 5-bet and seeing a flop correct, assuming my 60/40 estimate. if you had position, i'm relatively certain just calling the 5-bet would be correct, since you'd be able to put in more bets when you make a pair and get to showdown somewhat cheaper when you don't. out of position, all-in may well be the correct play.

[Nightwish]

[ QUOTE ]
Given Mike's strong image, his UTG raise is going to scream strength on most days. Especially at a tigher table where players are taking turns isolating the feeder. Then, toss in a likely 3-bet from a maniac, that gives Mike's hand headroom, whereas the others know he sure has a hand they donot want to get involved with, effectively, Mike plays the maniac heads-up. Where he wants to be, even more with the wild one short-stacked. An isolation out of position so to speak.

Maybe I'm high on a Saturday night. Maybe.


[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I would say you're right on. There are two kinds of preflop maniacs: ones that will raise with any two cards but will only call if someone raises in front of them, and ones that will raise/3-bet/cap with any two cards. The former can be tricky to deal with if you're out of position. The latter are easy regardless of your position because of exactly this "reverse isolation" move you describe.

[mike l.]

"if you had position, i'm relatively certain just calling the 5-bet would be correct, since you'd be able to put in more bets when you make a pair and get to showdown somewhat cheaper when you don't"

maybe im missing what youre saying but for me the whole point was i loved the bonus of being able to avoid making any decisions after the flop against this guy given his state of stuckness and shortstackedness and his looseness. i was satisfied to just know that my ATs was a good favorite against the range of hands he likely had and that he'd probably be willing to go all in against me if i dared him to.

like if i had just called his 3 bet or his 5 bet and now the flop came K98 all one suit not mine i would hate to sit there and check-call him down and hope my hand is good or fold and wonder if i just let him make desperation bets to shut me out, you really cant know against a player like that. so in letting me go all in against him he gives up any possible edge of unpredictability that he could have, he gives up any chance to win the pot other than to let his hand speak for itself.

as it was he had A7d against my ATs and an A flopped. my kicker was good and he went home as i raked in the pot.

im glad everyone felt the hand was standard, i agree it was.

[stinkypete]

i've been thinking about this hand some more.

i don't see avoiding making decisions yourself as a valid argument in this situation. in your K98 example, you're no worse off calling or betting for all of your opponents chips than you would be getting all in preflop, assuming your opponent is still willing to get all in.

with any flop, if you're unsure at all, you can just bet every street and be no worse off than you would have been getting all your money in before the flop (assuming your opponent has <5SB postflop, which he does if preflop goes 5 bets). you have the advantage of being able to fold if you catch a tell letting you know that you're beat often enough to give you incorrect odds to call. it's an unlikely situation of course, but who knows, he might flash his cards by accident.

in other words, if you play it right, your opponent derives no advantage from forcing you to make difficult decisions. his advantage is the fact that he has the option to fold. if he has 53o and doesn't improve, he can and probably will fold by the river. this is his only theoretical advantage, but it's a significant one.

unless he has a habit of giving off tells that are reliable enough to let you fold correctly at some point, the possibility that he could get away from a complete junk hand alone is enough to make getting all in pre-flop correct.


of course, there are other possible theoretical reasons for seeing a flop, but they don't change the situation:

example 1: you think you can get to showdown cheaper when your hand is worse. assuming 5 bets preflop, i don't see any line you could take where that possibility exists.

example 2: your opponent may fold incorrectly. this would imply folding a better hand, or folding getting odds to call to improve. the latter of these is very possible, but there is no way it outweighs the fact that he has the option to fold correctly unimproved.

[stinkypete]

in summary: avoiding making tough decisions post-flop is no reason to get all in against a weaker opponent. if he's willing to get all-in both before and after the flop, waiting until after the flop is correct exactly 100% of the time. but if his hand is particularly weak, and there's a chance he can get away from it post-flop, all in pre-flop is the correct play.

[mike l.]

"in your K98 example, you're no worse off calling or betting for all of your opponents chips than you would be getting all in preflop, assuming your opponent is still willing to get all in."

yes i totally am. let's say the flop comes like that and i bet and he raises. i will not know if he has a pair i can draw out on, a flush, nothing, etc. or if i bet and he calls. i will still have no clue where i stand. he may have 55 and be committed to calling the whole way (he wouldnt fold this that's for sure) or a slowplay or a pair or nothing or a draw. i will not know whether to bet the turn or check-call or check-fold. there's just too wide a range of hands for him to have for me to make a good decision against him with a flop that misses me completely. so it's not like i can just ignore the flop and continue to try and get as many bets as possible in on every street on the reasoning my hand is still a favorite.

"you think you can get to showdown cheaper when your hand is worse.'

i dont want to be bound and determined showdown bound even against this guy w/ ATs. sure ill see a lot of showdowns but he'll show me a lot of little pairs, probably more than he shows me K or Q high or worse. ill probably gain a little when i call him down with A high unimproved correctly minus the times i call him with that and am beat. but i will make a lot when my ATs makes the best hand and he has an okay/good second best hand. that's where the real profit is. if the guy had had $500 in front of him none of this wouldve happened. i wouldve 4 bet him preflop, he wouldve probably just called, and the hand wouldve went on like normal. part of this thread was to show the sort of nice advantage a player with less than 5 big bets in front of him who plays like he's ready to go home presents us with. i was surprised more people didnt say "gee i never put 10 bets in preflop without AA, i dont care who the guy is". skp? anyone?

[mike l.]

"but if his hand is particularly weak, and there's a chance he can get away from it post-flop,"

youre being far too hypothetical. if this guy had like 1 bet left that would be one thing, but we're talking about someone who might have 33 and if the flop came and i flopped a pair of tens he could easily flat call me down and only 2.5 of the 3.5 or 4 bets he has left. no good.