Question.

Let's say you're at a table that's for the most part a standard SSHE table but there's one maniac at the table who's raising, 3-betting and capping 50-60% of his hands and showing down ATo, Q4s, QJo and even worse at times, and not only that but also raising, re-raising and capping a lot of flops, turns and rivers.

Let's say the maniac is yet to act after you preflop.

How does that affect how you will play hands like 22-77, little suited aces and SCs up to about T9s and LSBs? At a table where nobody's raising anything other than QQ+/AK I'm more than happy to open limp and/or limp along with those hands, but I'm not sure I want to play them for two bets before the flop.

And what about hands like 88-TT, A8s-ATs, JTs, QJs, KTs, KJs? I'm happy to raise several limpers with any of these because they all play well multiway (well, maybe not 88-TT but I have a clear equity advantage with those and should push it), but I don't want to raise, have it 3-bet behind me and possibly spite-capped as well. When there's a maniac yet to act after me is it better to limp these and hope he raises for me?

The SSHE book says that at table conditions like these, pocket pairs actually play BETTER than suited connectors or suited aces/broadways because with a pocket pair you want to get a lot of action after the flop when you flop a set, and you'd prefer passive play with the drawing hands. Do I take that into account?

Hope this made sense.
DTXCF

With bad position vs maniac you should play tight, you can limp/call and limp/raise hands you would normally open, you can also justify adding a small range of hands just below your normal range ex. Maybe you could limp a2 , k9 in middlish position where you might normally fold

Small pairs and small aces should generally be folded unless late position, I would also be cautious of limping small suited connectors (below 98 at least) if first to act

Much depends on table dynamics. Maniacs have a way of awakening even the tightest players and inducing an action pact game. These are definately the conditions to want to play all pairs because of the great implied odds. I would just over limp some suited connectors that I would normally raise with. I would cut out the bottom part of the suited connector range since you will have to pay too much too draw. I would not limp big hands since he is only raising 50-60% pre and because you'll still probably get action even if he 3 bets.

Having a maniac to your left isn't necessarily a bad thing. You will be able to manipulate his tendencies by either CR or donking into him.

Just prepare for a ton of variance and make sure the maniac has plenty of chips and is there for the long haul. Nothing worse than getting stuck because of a maniac and then he quits the game.

Thanks for the responses. I think this is a very important point because if you're playing the type of game where there's no cap if a round begins heads up he might be crazy enough to go all in against you. I got the maniac to stack off against me when I had AA.

This and also the maniac's 3 bet means nothing so the other players will still be calling with whatever they would call two bets with.

3 players limp, A good TAG raises in the SB. I estimate his range is about top 12% here. I am next to act in the BB.

I estimate a hand like QJs has about 20% equity vs the field. would you guy's call or 3 bet here?

If we 3 bet and lose a customer, our equity goes up to 23% but that is less than the now 25% fair value. Based on this, is it still advantagious to create dead money and expand our 3 bet range?

Does top 12% seem like a reasonable estimate for a TAG raise in the SB after limpers?

What is the worst pocket pair you will 3 bet from BB in this scenario?

What is the worst Ace?

You could raise wider than 12% vs. 3 capped ranges for profit. Whether or not your "good TAG" would do so or not? It depends on the customer. It would also depend on how he sees you and how much he values the chance of driving you out of the pot, if that's likely.

Let's assume the BB is properly sticky, what hand is breakeven vs. the 3 limpers and the BB's random hand?

Doug, I’m not sure I agree with that thought process because raising with break even hands surely misses calling value.

I used to raise hands in the blinds that I considered break even but now I call more and raise less.

For example, a hand like T9s in the small blind:

We can call 1/2 small bets and receive some good profits from the pot; we’re probably winning our call plus a piece of the pot. This equals overlay from the pot.

We can raise for the cost of 1.5 small bets and probably either make a small profit or break even.

I’m not sure if that’s illustrative of the point I’m trying to make but I’m clicking post now anyways.

I didn't say "raise every hand breakeven or better." Knowing the breakeven hands, you at least know the point which raising worse is clearly wrong. You'd have calling equity but not value in a raise for some group of hands.. You could then look at the hands that you have immediate raising value and decide how you wanted to play from your SB.

I'm trying to work through how to think about a hand. Knowing what range of hands is breakeven or better is a good start, imo.

Ok that's a good place to start.

20/40 live 9 handed. Assume the game is decent but once in a while we get into a BVB situation. Assume the BB is a winning TAG who doesn't chop. I don't chop either. assume BB is calling 100% and probably 3 betting a good chunk.

It's been discussed that taking an open limping approach isn't ideal. Assume that I am open raising all playable hands. Take into consideration that It may get heads up maybe 3 or 4 times a session. The BB probably sees me as an average TAG.

What percentage of hands should I be opening? Are we removing certain hands from our range? What equity are we looking for against a 100% call range?

mongidig, that scenario was discussed at length in this thread:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/5.../#post53383353

(tl;dr: ~69% is a good open range)

I apologize if these questions have been asked elsewhere in the thread, I haven't had time to read all 69 pages:

9-handed typical SSHE table.

A TAG opens UTG and you're UTG+1. Do you have a cold-calling range there, almost regardless of table conditions? I can't imagine EVER cold-calling here - 3-bet JJ+/AK or fold.

A TAG opens UTG, an LP coldcalls UTG+1 and you're UTG+2. I'm on the fence here - if I'm going to cold-call ANYTHING I usually want at least a 5-way pot, i want position, and I DON'T want to get 3-bet and/or capped behind me. If I cold-call here, all I need is for both blinds to come along for the ride and I've got my 5 people, and if 1 or 2 other villains cold-call behind me I lose my "button" but I get a chance at a bigger pot.

I don't think I'd cold-call there - too many villains to act behind me. 3-bet TT+/AQso+ or fold.

A TAG opens UTG, an LP coldcalls UTG+1, folds around to me in the CO.

I could see cold-calling a pocket pair up to 99 or suited connector up to JTs, plus a few weaker suited broadways and maybe A8s/A9s. I 3-bet QJs+, ATs+ and TT+. I would prefer just one more villain already in the pot so I don't have to sweat both blinds calling (I won't be happy if I cold call here and end up only 4 ways to the pot), but I probably do it.

Thoughts?

I would 3 bet a typical TAG UTG open with 99+ AQo+. I'm not calling second in. I might call with a caller in between with some hands I might otherwise fold. Like KQs, AJs....if I thought the hand would go off multiway. In later position I may lean toward a raise with these.

There's exceptions to the above posts in blown out games.

For example, a game where most players were playing 60%+ hands and coming in with all sorts of garbage once there were callers in front. I open UTG and my friend (one of the big winners in the pool) cold calls UTG +1 with 33.

Of course, games need to be perfect to be making plays like that, but there's definitely times to liberalize your ranges.

Obviously an issue here is the profitability of cold calling 33 here is a hand waving argument as I doubt much info exists anywhere on this play (and I'm sure the players who do have a reasonable sample of cold calling 33 from EP aren't the times who will be making the most profitable decision each time post flop).

Scenario 1: I have 0% hands I cold call. I 3 bet or fold

Scenario 2: Rarely cold call here unless UTG+1 is a mega fish or players behind HERO is.

Even then, based on analyzing my experience cold calling within last 2 years in Scenario 2, came to the conclusion discussing with a 2BB/100 semi-pro that suited connectors like JTs is garbage because of the reverse implied odds. Set mining we found can be fine but also found it deoends on how bad first caller and rest of players to act like the blinds are. With low to mid pocket pair, you have more boards to attack even unimproved and still be able to fold vs aggression from TAG. Whereas suited connectors, hitting draws are fine but the pairs can put you in tough spots since reverse implied odds can be so bad vs TAG.

When BB in a BVB spot where the SB opens, do you flat or 3 bet with an appropriately wide range? Or mix it up?

I 3 bet a bunch but I've seen some "winning TAGs" just flat here.

Depends on sb cbet strategy. Without this information i 3 bet as default with lots of stuff.

Not as wide as further limit holdem suggestions though.

20/40 live 9 handed.

UTG opens, next player calls, MP calls, HJ 3 bets (he's a solid TAG), CO caps( He has only been at the table 30 minutes. He's played a ton of hands but has not raised)......Action is on me in the BB....Do I call...Jc7c? Tc8c? 7c5c? Kc7c?

I fold em all. But I really suck at this game if these are even questionable.

Those would all be easy folds for me even if there were one fewer raise to call.

JJ would be an interesting one given that scenario

I would call any pair here operating under the assumption nobody is folding pre.

Do you guy's call a hand like Jc9c?

You're getting 7:1 if btn and sb folded, and everyone calls (very likely).

75s should do extremely well against the field.
T8s I think has decent equity as well.
J7s and K7s are too weak tho imo. They both have a dominated high card, the J7 can easily run into QJ, and K7 can't make a straight.