30-60 AA hand

[DcifrThs]

i've never seen a maniac fold aj on that board if that maniac c-c'd (check called) the flop and then c-r'd the turn. thats the definition of a maniac, they bet/raise/reraise/c-r with many different holdings and of those many different holdings the one's you're worried about are 99 jj and j9. thats just about the only hands i could see the maniac raising with in mp that would pose a threat to you right now (unless its a crazy loon maniac razing w/ 95/35/39 and suffers from a bad case of FPS by c/c flop and c-r'ing turn with them.
soooo...easy 3 bet b/c maniac could have qq, kk, tt, 88, 77, 66 or basicaly any pair or crazy draw you could think of. further, reraising turn will in no way stop a maniac from betting river out of position.

just my opinion. comments? questoins?
-Barron

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
She could make this play with a nine a jack, a draw or a big hand like a set. Like pipedream said, I figured if I did three bet, there was a good possiblity of getting 4 bet, and I was not folding my hand under any circumstances.

So if she does have me beat and I three bet, she will four bet me, and I will have to call her four bet, and a river bet. So If I'm wrong, I lose 5 bets total between the turn and the river. If she has a draw, and I just call the turn, she will bet into me again on the river so I get three bets total. But if she has a draw and I raise her, I still only get three bets because she obviously won't pay off on the end. Finally, she could have a made hand that is inferior to mine, in which case she will call my three bet and another bet on the river. So I get 4 bets when she holds a worse made hand.

It got me thinking about some of those checkraise situations where you are up agaist someone who is very possibly on a draw, but could also hold a big hand. Sometimes I think it's better not to three bet without a very big hand in these spots, because if it is a draw, they are probably going to bet the river anyway a lot of time, so you get the same amount of bets. But when you are behind, you can end up losing as many as five bets if you are reraised and then bet into on the river.

So supose a third of the time she has a draw, a third of the time she a hand she can call my three bet with and pay off the river with, and a third of the time she had a hand that has me beaten and it costs me five bets to showdown. I'm not a math guy, so whats the right play?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well since you asked i'll give that math answer a wirl. its one of those situations where that is EXACTLY what you would want to do against good/tricky and other tricky players and is well thought out. BUT we may not be dealing with one of those because its a MANIAC.

anyway i did the EV/time played calculations and ended up with +$0.33 per time we reraise the turn and maniac caps and we call maniacs river bet/bluff. so we know that its at least a positive ev play. but is it the play with the most positive ev? if we just call it costs two fewer bets on the turn but we win two bets fewer bets those 2/3's of the time where we'd get them on the turn. i did the calculations w/ identical assumptions and found out that it is +$0.22 per time played because we don't win those 7 total bets when we reraise he caps the 2/3's of time with worse hand) when we call turn c-r and call when bet into on the river.

In addiation, the initial assumptions were 1/3 hand worse, 1/3 hand better, 1/3 draw which wouldn't pay off but would bet if we called. but maniac will r-r with ANY draw and will have worse hands and draws MUCH more than 2/3 of the time in this situation...probably more like 5/6 of the time or higher if its a real maniac, kq would give the maniac a draw, any qt, any aj, even a9 (a little unlikely since h'ed most likely bet and 3 bet flop with top pair top kicker), but other hands include any bigcard+jack or even overcards with some people. so i think maniac would cap and bet out river a total of many more times with worse hands/draws when we take into account the likelihood of each hand he'd do it with.

As a result, you're looking at an even higher EV for the reraise turn vs. call turn & river (probably more than $0.50 maybe even $1.00 b/c of the two bet difference a lot of the times the maniac has worse hands which are so much more likely).

Other variations like call turn raise river or reraise reraise reraise again (pretty unlikely...i wouldn't wanna spend that much on this hand) but i think they won't be much higher than the reraise & maniac caps and we call river as per above analysis.

And i think the reason the less aggressive approach is better vs. a good player is b/c those times won't be 1/3 1/3 1/3...it is much more likely the better player has much better hands in this situation and won't be raraising w/ cockeyed draws giving us 2 extra turn bets and 1 extra river bet so the times we are reraised on turn we'll be looking at a winner much more often than with the maniac.

what does everybody think? and can someone check my math (i did it in spreadsheet form on excel) questions? comments?

-Barron

So there's my shot at an introductory "math answer" for you

[Kevin J]

You might be right, but in my experience, many maniacs tend to get their maniacal behavior out of the way pre-flop, and/or on the flop, and start falling in line by the turn. That's not to say there aren't 4th and 5th street maniacs as well, but they are a rarer breed in my opinion.

I also don't think the word "maniac" should necessarily be synonomous with "idiot". Even a maniac might be able to fold AJ, TT,88,77,66,etc. for a 3 bet on the turn, and you don't want that.

I guess the bottom line is that if you knew your opponent would give you an insane amount of action every time with all kinds of worse hands, then you should go ahead and make the re-raise. But don't forget.. Maniacs can make sets too, so you WILL be beaten some times and if he could fold a two out hand, I think you are better off just calling. IMO-

[DcifrThs]

you are 100% correct...depends on the type of maniac which well determine the likely probability distribution of his c-r turn holdings...the more maniacle the more possible holdings, the more likely you are to be ahead and reraise, cap, call & call his river bet and make a nice ev per play...but its the level of maniacleness that determines the ev in this b/c of those initial assumption figures.

anyway, to each his own [maniac] ;-)

-Barron

[gaylord focker]

Imposible. She is a maniac but not a total idiot. When I three bet her preflop, she was well aware of the fact that I likely had a real hand. She will 4 bet any two pair or better on the turn, but nothing worse. If she has a draw, she will call my the bet and probably check fold the river. But, like I said, if I just call the turn, she will probably bet the river for me anyway, so it works out the same in that situation. The only way I get 4 bets is if she has a made hand that cannot beat aces. And I lose five bets if she can beat AA if I 3 bet the turn. I'm not confused, but I'm also not saying the 3 bet couldnt have been right.

[shemp]

So you're telling me that any J or 9 or AcJc, KcJc, KhJh, or hands like QcTc, KcTc, (or KTo), etc that rivers a pair (and many more) check fold the river or is it you are complaining that there aren't a lot of hands like that? Also, the socalled maniac will not 4bet a 15 out hand on the turn because "she is not an idiot". Well, apparently, she's not a maniac either, and the reason she loves to makes moves on the turn (as you described) is because she is playing with a puppy who doesn't punish them. And if she'll only 4-bet a hand that beats AA, why do you need to call the river if you don't improve? Oh. And listen Focker. It doesn't workout the same because she may improve to a callable hand or based on the river card she may decide that a bluff is hopeless.

[Kevin J]

This is the way I look at it. If she has a flush draw, she is certainly correct to call your raise. You will also no doubt feel obligated to pay off a flush card when it hits. So I think it comes down to how likely she is to continue betting a worse hand (including a busted draw) on the river. If she is very likely, then I think calling the turn makes more sense. IMO- Then again, if she's very likely to give you a silly amount of action with a hopeless hand on the turn, then you have to consider re-raising, but you have to know your player. Maniac doesn't always mean brain-dead and they are also capable of flopping sets just as often as the rest of us.

[gaylord focker]

I agree entirely that is comes down to how likely she is to continue betting a worse hand. Also, I felt although she was a maniac, she was quite aware that I had not gotten out of line all game, and that there was good possiblity I held a big pair. So whe she checkraised, although it was possible she has something like a bare jack, I thought it was more likely she either flopped a very big hand, or she had a draw. I was almost positve she would lead into me again with a busted hand which is the main reason I just called. I called the turn, she bet the river, I called again and turned she over Q 10 for no pair.

[astroglide]

you really need to re-assess your use of the term 'maniac'. if this person will call or even reraise with a worse hand, it makes 3betting even better. i don't see what is difficult here.

[Franchise (TTT)]

Why not consider what the maniac thinks you have? She could have as little as a medium pocket pair, and be determined to push you off overcards since rags flopped. I'd 3-bet for this hand, and to get the maniac off my back for future hands.