Nano-limit Maniacs

[TeeVeeDude]

I've been playing the .02/.04 tables at PokerStars for a couple of months now. Friday I saw something that I'd never seen before.

I'm at a table that's unusually tight for this limit, with a lot of hands being won without a showdown. A new guy joins the table, two seats to the left of me. He stands out before he plays his first hand, because the normal buy-in here is 40 cents and he buys in for $100.00.

He posts a blind, there are a few folds and a couple of callers, he raises, everybody folds.

Next hand he raises, everybody folds.

Next hand he raises, gets two callers. He raises the flop, one fold one call. On the turn he raises, gets re-raised, they cap the turn and the river. He shows down with a 9-3 offsuit that didn't match anything on the board, and loses to a pair of 7's.

Next hand I get a pair of jacks, the maniac and I cap every round of the betting, and he shows another rag hand -- I think this time he caught a piece of the flop and ended up with something like a pair of 4's.

Most of the folks as the table are still folding to his raises, so I loosen up my standards and start betting any ace, any two broadway, any two suited, etc. The maniac stays for about two orbits and when he leaves I'm up almost $5 -- over 100 BB's.

The really weird thing is that a couple of hours later, at a different table, a DIFFERENT maniac sits in. This one brings $4,000 to a .02/.04 table, and starts raising every hand. He didn't stick around as long as the first one, but he did make a nice contribution to may bankroll before he went.

And both of these guys were real loudmouths, berating the other players for poor play, trying to get the phone numbers of the female players, and just generally being obnoxious.

The most interesting thing is the reaction of the rest of the table to the maniacs. Most of the fish fall into one of two categories:

1) They fear the maniacs constant raising and fold with decent hands, or

2) They become maniacs themselves.

I haven't encountered these kinds of maniacs before, but working from general principles here's what I figured out:

Many players think that you must play tight at a loose table. But SSHE says that it is correct to play slightly tighter than the table, not overly tight.

So when a maniac will raise with any two cards, it is correct to play back at him with ALMOST any two cards. I was playing him with, as I said, any pocket pair, any ace, any two suited cards, any two connected cards. If the flop missed me I'd fold (but not with the pocket pairs since a pair of deuces was often good). If the flop hit me I'd play back at the maniac, capping every round of betting.

I'm not sure if this is optimum strategy against a maniac, but it seemed to work. I'd appreciate comments from those with more experience.

[MrWookie47]

That's pretty close to perfect, and it looks like it worked. You just have to know what has showdown value, and be prepared for a lot of variance.

[UATrewqaz]

Two strategies really

1. Batten down the hatches and wait for excellent hands, ones they will pay you off on big time, this is a profitable/low variance strategy.

2. Loosen up and try to isloate him when you have decent/good hands. This is a more profitable but higher variance play.

[imported_The Vibesman]

When I run into maniacs at .5/1 I play them the same as you just described.

[Dave G.]

[ QUOTE ]
So when a maniac will raise with any two cards, it is correct to play back at him with ALMOST any two cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to understand what to do, judging by the rest of your post, but this quote needs some attention. You still need to play solid hands against a maniac. You can't play "almost any two", it becomes a crapshoot and you're just as likely to blow off your stack to him as he is to you (you have in effect also become a maniac). Additionally, unless you isolate and get it HU, you do still have to worry about the other players in the hand who may beat you.

The play you suggested sounds fine, but I have a few comments about small pairs. I fold small pairs (66 - 22) against a maniac.

The reason I fold small pairs is I want to limit my variance. If I go nuts with 22 just because he's a maniac, well, it's a crapshoot as to who is actually going to lose money on the hand. I'm either a VERY slight favourite or a huge underdog to a better pocket pair. This sort of situation is pointless and will make your variance jump hugely for only a very tiny long term profit. Calling 2 bets preflop with these hands only to fold the flop most of the time is a sure fire way to lose money as well, even if you allow for generous implied set odds (your set won't always win). If you're going to play your pair against him, you have to commit to it and take it all the way from the start, set or not. Since this is basically a crapshoot, I avoid it.

However, 77 and better are certainly good to play. You have a lot more equity with the medium pairs because they will frequently be higher than one or even both of your maniacs hole cards, which cripples his ability to pair up and beat you. Definitely play these and raise with them.

That's just my take on it anyway. I'm interested to hear other comments about the pairs as well.

[aces_dad]

I agree with this post as the very smallest of the PP's are still against 2 live overcards and thus think that you should wait for little higher edges to push with.

[shant]

You adjusted to the situation and got paid. Well done.

You also tipped me off to a fun idea that I will try out tonight.

[numeri]

[ QUOTE ]
You adjusted to the situation and got paid. Well done.

You also tipped me off to a fun idea that I will try out tonight.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, looking back on my days in 0.02/0.04, these maniacs were free money. Now, it sounds like a fun thing to do! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Somewhat irrelevant... but are you serious about all this? At .02/.04 there would rarely be a showdown? You gotta be kidding me! That's tighter than the 1/2 tables I've played on UB even!

[Greg J]

Well done. The best advice in this thread is that which tells you to keep doing what you just did. I think the strategy you outlined was more or less correct.