Beating a maniac...

[O-PGManager]

How do you guys handle a couple of maniacs at your table? Do you become
obsessed with stopping their maniacal behavior by calling them all the way
down with 2nd or 3rd pair only to find this time they actually had it? I
think too many people do that, in their effort to tame the beast they
become a careless player themselves. I became much more successful when I
started just waiting for the law of odds to kick in and these guys to go
bust, it'll happen. But does anyone alter their play subtley to stick it
to these guys capping pots preflop with 83s and then trying to represent
their way out? I think the average solid player at the low limits is best
served by sticking with their tight aggressive style rather than trying to
constantly "expose" the maniac for their bad play, and ending up playing
poorly themselves.

O-PG

------------------------------------------
Start winning hundreds at Texas Holdem with Power Holdem+
http://www.online-pokerguide.com

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com

[Exacta]

On 08 Aug 2003 13:00:49 GMT, "O-PGManager"
<manager@online-pokerguide.com> wrote:

>How do you guys handle a couple of maniacs at your table? Do you become
>obsessed with stopping their maniacal behavior by calling them all the way
>down with 2nd or 3rd pair only to find this time they actually had it? I
>think too many people do that, in their effort to tame the beast they
>become a careless player themselves. I became much more successful when I
>started just waiting for the law of odds to kick in and these guys to go
>bust, it'll happen. But does anyone alter their play subtley to stick it
>to these guys capping pots preflop with 83s and then trying to represent
>their way out? I think the average solid player at the low limits is best
>served by sticking with their tight aggressive style rather than trying to
>constantly "expose" the maniac for their bad play, and ending up playing
>poorly themselves.
>
I was in just such a game last weekend at the Grand in Biloxi. It can
be very frustrating, for sure and after getting knocked around a
little, I finally took option #1: I got up and moved!

Please understand that my comments come from a low-limit player, and
may not apply to higher games.

These games are very high variance propositions, and a lot depends on
WHEN they're wild. Is it capped pre-flop, and with awful hands? Or is
the flop pretty sane and then the maniacs take over after they see the
flop?

In the former, about all you can do is tighten WAY up on your starters
and wait for really good cards; then play them aggressively. You will
play few hands, and win few pots, but the ones you win will he huge.
If you can tolerate playing that style, it may be the way to go.

If the craziness is mostly post-flop, you can see more flops cheaply,
especially from late position, and begin to play some draws, lower
pairs, etc, planning on bailing if the flop doesn't hit you pretty
hard. Flushes are very nice in games like this, and of course you much
prefer to be drawing to the nut flush. Here too, you will win few, and
may go through a rack or two without winning.

One thing about the wild games, especially when there are several
wildees, is that even tho they're playing crap, often the odds are
there for their draws, while the implied odds for "good" hands are
knocked in a cocked hat. This makes it tough to beat them. You may be
favored over any one of them, but as a group, they're favored over
you.

OTOH, a thing I have noticed about the players I call "promiscuously
aggressive", is they often do not have as good a hand as they
represent by their actions. Especially if there's just one of them in
a game, you can wait for a good hand, isolate him and club him with
it. Very satisfying!!

Google might be a help for you in this. The very best article I have
read about this topic was penned by Abdul Jalib on rgp. Enter, "Some
views on Paradise Poker." and a thread will come up where both Abdul,
and Ed Hill have very interesting things to say on this topic.

Abdul's other strategy of "Bulldog calling" is also contained in his
article and is worth your while also...

Good luck!
bill

[Bill Reich]

"O-PGManager" <manager@online-pokerguide.com> wrote in message news:<3f339f01$0$15160$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>...
> How do you guys handle a couple of maniacs at your table? Do you become
> obsessed with stopping their maniacal behavior by calling them all the way
> down with 2nd or 3rd pair only to find this time they actually had it?

Why would you want to STOP their behavior? You should call them
because you have a hand that might beat them (second or third pair
might be enough but it also might not) and you want their money. Not
because you don't like the way that they play.

> I think too many people do that, in their effort to tame the beast they
> become a careless player themselves.

The first problem those players have is that they are trying to tame
the beast instead of trying to maximize their own profit. If you don't
feel that you can play against a certain style of play, change tables.
Don't try to change the player's habits.

> I became much more successful when I started just waiting for the law of odds
> to kick in and these guys to go bust, it'll happen.

WTF is the "law of odds?" If you mean the law of averages, there isn't
any real law of averages. If you mean that their luck will even out
and your superior play will win, we have two problems. Luck evens out
in the long run, granted for the sake of the discussion. However, the
long run is a very long time. "In the long run, we are all dead" is
one of John Maynard Kean's truest statements. The other problem is
that you think that anyone you call a maniac is a bad player. Some of
them aren't. Daniel Negreanu wrote an article in which he mentioned
"good loose-aggressive players." There were quite a few people who
disputed that such players exist. However, they do. If their
people-reading skills and ability to mislead are good enough, bad
initial hand selection can be partially overcome, maybe completely
overcome, and they may never go bust. Be ready to realize that one or
two of these players are better than you are willing to believe right
now.

> But does anyone alter their play subtley to stick it
> to these guys capping pots preflop with 83s and then trying to represent
> their way out? I think the average solid player at the low limits is best
> served by sticking with their tight aggressive style rather than trying to
> constantly "expose" the maniac for their bad play, and ending up playing
> poorly themselves.

Everyone's money is equal. You shouldn't be worried about winning any
particular player's money and it is really counter-productive to be
trying to expose anyone's bad play. I would certainly loosen up my
call/reraise standards against a player like this but only for
monetary reasons, not to try to prove anything. And I would see if
they are vulnerable to re-steals once in awhile because some of us
maniacs, I mean THOSE maniacs, of course, are. Sort of like many
pressing basketball teams sometimes are very bad at handling the
press.

--
Will in New Haven

"There's that maniac, idiot, Will. Let's throw money at him." My
friend Megan, describing her impression of the attitude of the $1-5
stud players toward me in late 2000 and early 2001. It DID seem like
no one would fold when I bet.

[O-PGManager]

> Why would you want to STOP their behavior? You should call them
> because you have a hand that might beat them (second or third pair
> might be enough but it also might not) and you want their money. Not
> because you don't like the way that they play.
>
I don't, I was speaking about people who do. My point was people start
calling down people with 3rd pair because they "know he's a maniac" and "i
cant let him keep buying the pot" and then suprise the maniac has the
cards. Maniacs play lousy cards, but they get as many good cards as
anyone, and they play those too. I don't think calling down to the river
with 3rd pair is ever the right play in a full handed low limit holdem
game no matter who you are playing.


> WTF is the "law of odds?" If you mean the law of averages, there isn't
> any real law of averages. If you mean that their luck will even out
> and your superior play will win, we have two problems.

I meant the law of averages, honest mistake, don't think it's worthy of a
WTF. I have to disagree with you about there being no law of averages.

That's exactly what I meant, their luck will even out and your superior
play will win. The basis for winning poker is that luck does even out, if
you don't think it evens out in time to make you a winner and "you'll be
dead" before it does, then go play slots.

For the purposes of my discussion, any player holding 38s capping a pot in
a low limit online game is not a cunning, calculated professional, but
rather, what I consider a maniac. I'm certain there are maniacal pros who
are tremendous players, but I'm not including them in the category of
maniac for this discussion. And I believe the tight aggressive disciplined
poker player has a superior playing style to this type.


> "There's that maniac, idiot, Will. Let's throw money at him." My
> friend Megan, describing her impression of the attitude of the $1-5
> stud players toward me in late 2000 and early 2001. It DID seem like
> no one would fold when I bet.

That's exactly what I'm talking about, people loosening up their tight
play too much which ends up hurting them in the long run. I advise them
against doing so.


O-PG

------------------------------------------
Start winning hundreds at Texas Holdem with Power Holdem+
http://www.online-pokerguide.com

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com

[James L. Hankins]

"Joeker" <anonymous@joeker.com> wrote in message
news:3f33c7de$0$15241$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...


> I love playing these type of guys, it's like FREE money. It all boils
> down to patience and trapping.


True for the most part. But I play regularly with a true maniac and every
so often when he catches, he busts everyone. I mean everyone.