|
|
#24
02-08-2004, 01:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: results
[ 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. 
|
|
#25
02-08-2004, 01:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: results
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.
|
|
#26
02-08-2004, 04:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: results
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.
|
|
#27
02-08-2004, 02:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: results
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.
|
|
#28
02-08-2004, 04:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Where\'s Dynasty?
He would scold you for being on the maniac's left. Good for you, you've waited 221 and now you get to play AA against 56s. And of course he is right.
It's this fact that keeps people fearing the juiciest games. They aren't set up to win huge pots w/ there best hands (cuz they are trying to isolate the maniac, instead of springboard him) and then they get jimmied off marginal hands.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
