|
|
#21
11-04-2005, 04:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Hand against a maniac with deep stacks (AK UI)
I don't fire second bullets against maniacs OOP unless I have some sort of re-draw. Maybe I'm becoming weak/tight... that would be cool.
|
|
#22
11-04-2005, 04:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hand against a maniac with deep stacks (AK UI)
I'm not sure how you're using the word 're-draw' here. I'm quite likely ahead and if I'm behind I certainly have 6 clean outs to the winner.
|
|
#23
11-04-2005, 06:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hand against a maniac with deep stacks (AK UI)
What scares the ### out of me is when a maniac starts flat calling and value betting. Would be much happier calling if he pushed the flop. I'm just a 100NL player so maybe maniacs are different (?) at higher stakes.
I like the idea of check - calling but you must still bet the flop to loose SB, right? Betting half pot would probably accomplish this, and to some maniacs a 1/2 pot bet looks less tempting to "stab at" than a full pot bet (depending on his read on you). Sure, that will let him draw (?) to his whatever cheaply, but you are basically lost almost no matter what card falls so might as well try to keep the pot small?
|
|
#24
11-04-2005, 07:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hand against a maniac with deep stacks (AK UI)
True. It seems you are building a weird character for this guy though. He won't bluff the turn when it isn't totally retarded to do so, but he will make a turn call that is so retarded it will be one of the most retarded moves I've ever seen posted on here.
|
|
#26
11-04-2005, 08:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Hand against a maniac with deep stacks (AK UI)
NO I DON'T LIKE IT BECAUSE I PLAYED THIS HAND PERFECTLY JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER HAND I HAVE EVER PLAYED!
but you can still tell me why you would check the flop.
|
|
#27
11-04-2005, 10:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: River
[ QUOTE ]
OK, I hope people find this hand interesting. I think the discussion has been really good, thanks. So anyways, he bet $375 on the river into the $350 pot. Do you call or fold? [/ QUOTE ] I probably call for that amount if I know he is willing to bluff. Certainly a bet that doesn't look like it wants to be called.
|
|
#28
11-04-2005, 10:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: River
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] OK, I hope people find this hand interesting. I think the discussion has been really good, thanks. So anyways, he bet $375 on the river into the $350 pot. Do you call or fold? [/ QUOTE ] Yup. I called. I won. He had 9s3s. I won the hand and basically ended up playing it perfectly by FToP but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the best line. The thing is that if the guy is LAG but GOOD then he can kill me here by slowplaying a made hand (AND made hand). But this guy wasn't good, he was just a maniac, so I figured if he's passive he must REALLY have no hand. And then of course he'll bluff river if he can't possibly win a showdown. Part of my reasoning was that if he had a small pair, he would check the river some of the time, so I had to discount a made hand when he bet the river. Of course I could still lose, but I only had to win 40% or whatever to make it +EV and I figured that I easily crossed that threshold. I probably call for that amount if I know he is willing to bluff. Certainly a bet that doesn't look like it wants to be called. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#29
11-04-2005, 11:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: River
[ QUOTE ]
The thing is that if the guy is LAG but GOOD then he can kill me here by slowplaying a made hand (AND made hand). [/ QUOTE ] The good LAG plays his made hands exactly like his air. It sounds to me as if this guy is of the call/call/hammer the river variety with air, but will announce that they have some kind of a hand (pair, draw, etc) earlier. I love those guys. I want to sit on their right at every table.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
