Best strategy against a bluffing maniac?

[WordWhiz]

Had a weird (but very profitable!) situation on crypto last night. 6 handed game with a maniac-bluffer to my left. He was definitely loose and aggressive, but not a full fledged maniac. His "specialty," if you will, was bluffing at you with nothing, and then not giving up no matter how much strength you showed. He didn't seem to get that no player is ever going to five bet the river but fold to a six bet.

Since crypto has no caps on betting when HU, this led to some interesting issues for the hands I got against him. In theory, I should be willing to go to the felt with any hand I feel is better than his. In reality, unless I'm holding the nuts, this is very dangerous, since he could hold a genuine hand (which he did, once).

Is there some strategy for maximizing my return without risking everything on one hand?

Here are a handful of the relevant hands he played, to give you some concrete idea of what I'm talking about:

1) I open-raise from SB with K7. He calls. Flop is 678, turn a K. Total of 9 bets go in on flop and turn before I get scared that he actually has a set or a straight. I C/c the river; he flips over A2 for an unimproved A high.

2) I have J7, flop is K22, turn J. He bets the turn, I raise, he reraises, I reraise, he reraises, I just call. I call the blank river. He has Q6.

3) I have AT, flop is T35, turn 6, river A. I put in a total of 14 bets with my top two pair. He shows 33 for the flopped set.

As you can see, this guy was completely insane, but I was hesitant to put in too many bets without the nuts. Obviously the goal is to wait for a nut hand and take his whole stack, but until then, is there an optimal number of bets for each hand? Or is it just a matter of how risk averse I am?

[ohnonotthat]

I'll leave the number crunching - i.e., exactly how far to go with a specific hand - to those better able to handle it but I will offer this one bit of wisdom.

While in theory it is correct to go to the felt with any hand that beats his [apparently] random holding (assuming you have a virtually unlimited bankroll) there is one thing you need to consider.

Your opponent is human (lol - even if it doesn't always seem so) and as such he does have something resembling a "goal".

Translation: it's probably unwise to go 37 bets on the river with anything less than the nuts; if you let this guy get way ahead he may decide to call it a night. (Or the voices may decide it for him).

Another problem with allowing him to get too far ahead - those chips may not find a permanent home in his stack but they also may not find their way home to you. You said the game was 6-handed; if so, there are 4 other places those chips could wind up.

[winky51]

vs Bluffing Tricky Maniac I turn into their worst nightmare, a calling station.

You have a reasonable hand call down. Don't get into a raising war with him unless you have a strong hand. Just call down, you will actually make more money that way.

I had a similar guy once that bluffed EVERY HAND. I lose a few to him when he was legit but 3/4 of the time he bluffed I had him. In 30 mins I made $200 just from this guy bluffing at 3/6 SH. 7h 8h 2c Jd 2h and I hold 55 I call down. AK Ace high on a 23527 board I call down. 88 on a KQ427 board I call down. Normally I play differently but guys like this just dont stop so dont guess their hand and call down with hands that can win showdowns.

Now if the board came T987 and 3 spades and I had a pair of 33s. I would probably fold there. Thats too much. Or a 4 spade board with 2-3 overcards and me no spade.

[daryn]

you seem to be not understanding the situation. the OP is not just asking about how to beat a guy who bluffs too much. he's wondering what is the optimal amount of action to give when there is unlimited raising HU in a limit poker game.

to answer, i would just be willing to go something like 6 or 8 bets on the river with a "strong hand" such as your top 2 pair, and save the rest for nut situations

[AaronBrown]

I wouldn't call this guy a bluffing maniac. In each hand he had a stronger starting hand than you did (33 does not play stronger than AT, but it's stronger at the moment). He raises without improving, which is often the correct play. Where he goes crazy is not stopping after one raise, as you say he doesn't understand that no one will five bet, then fold to the six (you sometimes hear stories about two experts doing this, the most famous involved Oswald Jacoby's father, but even the greatest experts will usually find it worth one bet to win 20 or more to see if their bluff is better than your bluff).

If there were no other players at the table taking advantage of this, the best strategy would be to wait for nuts. There's a finite amount you can win from this guy, there's no harm in taking it slowly and safely rather than trying to do it fast and maybe crashing. You usually take more doing it slowly, because you preserve his illusions longer.

On the other hand, with four other players to share the spoils with, you might want to get your share faster, which means taking a few more chances. I'd be careful here, the other players may not see things as clearly as you. Winning some big pots with marginal hands may encourage them to imitate you.

Without knowing the table, it's hard to say, but I think I would have been happy with fewer bets than you made on the three hands you mention. Even knowing that he raises on anything, I go maybe 2 or 3 bets on (1), don't raise at all on (2) and 4 or 5 on (3). But there's no theory behind it, just less willingness to gamble.

There are two other things to do. First is to take any possible chance of getting heads-up with this guy holding the nuts. I'd play a lot more starting hands, and stick around to draw to more hands. It's like you get the option of deciding whether it's limit or no-limit poker.

The other thing is to watch the effect on other players carefully. A wild player will often throw other players off their game, sometimes you can make more indirectly than directly. This guy will loosen up the table and destroy respect for raises. If they're all focused on taking his money, you can pick their pockets.

[sk_man]

There's probably an exact equation for how many bets to go with any given holding (which would be intereting to see, because the size of you're bankroll is going to be a factor). But my first thought after reading your post was what ever you do, don't let him sit behind you.

If he plays the same in a multiway pot, it might be fun to sit across from him and spend the night trapping people in the middle with their drawing hands.

I would expect an equation to take into account your overall stack, and the relative value of your hand contrasted to his SEMI-random holdings ...

Its pretty clear what to do when you have a good hand (one you would bet with confidence in most situations)

When faced with marginal raising or calling situations, my strat against this kind of guy would be this:

Bet an amount representative of the strength (rarity) of your hand. Therefore you are self-hedging your bets.

Take it up to 4-bets on riv with any decent pair, on a board of moderate danger.

Take it to six bets on low two pair.

Take it to eight bets on high two pair...

ETC...

lower your number of bets when there are flush and str draws out there... but basically you KNOW this guy is betting with nothing, and the chance of ruin if he happens to hit big is just a part of poker.

Playing against someone pushing a lot of money in will always increase variance, but it will be to your advantage when they do it this recklessly. You could go broke, because he can, like anyone, hit a hand....

I can only do a little bit in the way of a formula, but I'm sure that your assessment of how much to skew his "random" holdings is the most important factor..

At the river, look at the number of cards in the deck that would beat you.. Lets say he is 20% more likely than random to be holding these cards... you'd have to observe his fold rates to get more accurate on this skew.

Wager so that you only risk 1 / (your percentage to lose) percent of your stack.

Use whole number percentage under the reciprocal:

for example: at the river with 45 unseen cards.. you count 6 alone and 8 held in combination that would beat you.

I'd make that 8/45 or so... 17.7% which skewed 20% upwards ends up at 21.25%.

plug this whole number percent into my little fraud formula here:

1/25.25 = .03

Don't risk more than 3% of the stack (overall tolerance of loss) which you are willing to expose on this venture...

It's pretty crummy, and this clearly shows that I'm a theory and not a praxis guy when it comes to the math/logic world.... but I think it provides a guide (or at least the way of thinking) that could be fine tuned to make sure you are making solid EV decisions for the odds you are getting. Betting more when it is likely you are ahead, and much less on risky ventures, while making sure to keep it in proportion to your overall stack sounds like the overall strategy of a winner.

I leave you with this thought:
No matter what, the more you try to press your marginal advantages, the higher your variance will be. You'll make more money in the long run pressing marginal edges, but this guy is only going to be around for the short term, and could take you for a big one and then split. So hedge.

Cheers
and I hope u find donks like this all the time...

[ohnonotthat]

[ QUOTE ]


Now if the board came T987 and 3 spades and I had a pair of 33s. I would probably fold there. Thats too much. Or a 4 spade board with 2-3 overcards and me no spade.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or, as a friend of mine says when he straddles and notices the player to his immediate left mulling a call . . .

"No shame folding if you can't beat two random cards" [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[ohnonotthat]

[ QUOTE ]


The other thing is to watch the effect on other players carefully. A wild player will often throw other players off their game, sometimes you can make more indirectly than directly. This guy will loosen up the table and destroy respect for raises. If they're all focused on taking his money, you can pick their pockets.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Did you say 'dead on balls accurate' " ?

- "Yeah, it's a industry term".

*

Great line from MY COUSIN VINNY and a great description of this point.

This point: See "the one I neglected to mention" [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

*

Fortunately you didn't [neglect to mention it]. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

im probably gonna go after this guy as much as i can.

and that pot you lost w/ his set isnt a big deal IMO because you have gained/will gain so many bets from him.

a guy like this can really help your win rate in a night.. just because he is a donk doesnt mean you should go after the better players for one and two bets here and there.

i know its very odd when someone does this but i love to take advantage of these people. any hand you have against him jam it.