Excellent article from DK. Playing maniacs is also one of my pet peeves and is a topic i find really interesting. Dealing with maniacs is right at the core senter of adjusting and exploiting.

I am tuning in with more reflections and examples in this discussion when i have better time and is back on my laptop.

Sent from my LG-D855 using 2+2 Forums

Nice COTM

Alright, i got some things popping up in my head so i had to log on to my computer and get it out before i forget it lol

First of all i want to share with you a story of a drunk maniac that i ended up felting at Treasure Island casino at Las Vegas. When me and my buddy arrived at the table at the middle of the night DM(drunk maniac) was sitting on this huge stack of 1400 dollars, at a 1/3 game. It was 6 handed at the time, and he was just running over the table making big bets on all streets: pre, on the flop, if called on the turn, if called on the river. I mean, he did not slow down at all and i could see on the smirk smile on his face that he was truly enjoying whiping the floor with his opponents.

What they all had in common was that they could not adjust properly at all to him. They would call his 10 X bomb raise preflop, and his 90 percent C-bet freqenzy on the flop with top pair and fold on the turn when DM keeps bombing it and they have to decide for their whole stack. Also couple of the old guys was trying to bluff him in huge pots, when its obvious that was suicide because drunky had no fold button at all.

I bought in for 250 bucks,because i wanted to start off with an easily played shallow stack until i got some bette reads and observations on DM. As DK mentioned in his article, i got the jesusseat in this situation-i had maniac to me direct left. This turned out to become a gold mine, because in bloated multiwaypots i got manic to fire out his big C-bets like he did on every flop and got to see how everyone else acted before i made my stand. Often it went down exactly like i was hoping for: maniac bomb C-bet the flop and everybody folds (they did not flop the nutz,surprise) so i was alone with the maniac rest of the hand.

This session is probably the one i have the most good memories from. Not just because i ended up winning good in the end, but because i was able to make the necesserly adjustments to own maniac over and over again- and the rest of the table didnt understand what was happenning. I am most comfortably playing tight low variance poker to be honest, so it was quite a big thing for me to able to adjust properly. Only that they were happy on my part for owning the maniac in several huge pots, because he was quite rude also and had been running over the table in hours before i arrived.

One of the key pots (and a legendary one) was when i flopped a set with 99 on K9Q board all diamonds in a multiway pot. I was in the SB and checked to maniac. He as planned bombed out full pot bet of around 100 bucks. Everyone folded, and it gets around to me. Against this dude i am never folding a set, even on this scary of a board in a multiway pot. Why? DM is C-betting 90 percent of hands, and my set is way ahead of his range, so its all about adjusting. I declared allin for 400 dollars total and manic starts talking to himself and is clearly frustrated that he dont get the folds he is used to anymore. "I am losing, i have to call" he finally says to me. As the dealer run the turn card (the final 9 in the deck), maniac asks me "you have a flush"? No i actually got quads so your probably drawing dead i respond and turbotable my hand. The whole table bursts out in laughter.





Summary:

1) Against maniacs there isnt such thing as pot control or try playing a small pot. What maniacs do is they force you to play big pot poker and with that also high variance poker. Every hand you play with them is a potenial stackoff hand, even if you play 100 BB or 400 BB stack. Plan ahead: dont call the full pot C-bet on the flop if you just gonna fold when maniac double barrells turn,its like lightening money on fire.

2)Find out how the maniac responds to aggression. Does he become a total station that refuses to fold? Does he call with his whole range or only the top of it?Does he autofold when facing aggression from other players? Reads is everything, like DK also mentioned in the opening post. The one i faced at Treasure Island coudnt handle it at all when he was facing aggression, and ended up making several horrible calls against me. Maniacs who not just are overaggressive but also dont have a fold button is so proffitable that i cant even describe it. If thats the case i am ordering food and locking myself up to my seat.

3)Adjust your stackoff thresholds for gods sake. It almost tilts me when i see people all the time is waiting for the mortal nutz before they stackoff against a maniac who is raising 90 percent of hands dealt and C-betting/double barrelling with a ridicilous frequenzy. You arent playing against OMC now who only puts his stack in with AA or the flopped nutz. Put your stack in when you figure to be ahead of maniacs range=print money like you have not done before.

All in all great COTM. One of my biggest peeves is listening to the "pros" and regs harp on all of the dumb things that the idiot is doing, when they could be making so much more money by shutting up and adapting.

Just want to say thank you for the term " quantum impotence" it is now one of my favorite.

Against certain types of maniacs, the correct adjustment is to have zero bluffs in your range. That includes semibluffs. I remember playing against one maniac where an open-ended straight flush draw on the flop was an automatic check-call because you would get his stack if you hit and lose less if you missed, whereas I might be more likely to try to GII on the flop against any other player.

Maniacs like this may bother players who have an ego-driven emotional investment in bluffing being a significant part of their game. (They sometimes get angry when I check-call down against them with TPTK because apparently that's not "real" poker.)

The last thing I want them to do is adapt. Let them talk if it keeps them from adapting.

100% agree. But it still annoys me when they talk about it.

1. don't let the maniac know what he's doing wrong. but many maniacs don't listen or care anyway.
2. Also listening to rampant stupidity annoys me and I know that this is a mental game issue. I resort to the headphones and getting up to take a walk every now and then. mostly just because I used to be very cocky so I would want to argue with the guys. now I suppress it and hope the whale loses to me before he gets caught by anyone else.

Great COTM - my home casino's tend to be crazy aggressive compared to a lot of other places around the world I've played, so I encounter this all the time and it used to be a huge leak for me.

One of the things that was glossed over a bit was how the table dynamic can change significantly when the maniac shows up, especially if he wins a few hands.

I know in the past I have most likely lost more to the other people at the table in these situations than the maniac himself. I tend to agree that the seat on the right is the "Jesus Seat". Here's a scenario: Maniac ($900) has been opening 50% of hands to $20. You are two seats to his left. He bets $20, one caller, hero ($250) looks down at KQs and jacks it to $75 since we are way ahead of Maniac's range. Wanting to get in on the action, V2 ($300) flats your $75, and then someone else ships $200. Maniac folds, Hero is getting 3:1 to call the additional $125. All kinds of questionable plays, but everyone who has ever played $1-2 has seen this happen. I think the slightly EV+ is to fold, but I think it's slim either way. In any event it's a super tough spot that you didn't necessarily do anything wrong to find yourself in.

As much as separating the maniac from his stack seems like the obvious thing to focus on, I think there is just as much to be made paying attention to the other rec-fish type players who are going to make a ton of mistakes "adjusting" to the maniac and will likely have the blinders on. Seeing who has tendencies to just widen up their range and call everything, those looking to limp/rr their monster, and those who are 3betting light can be hugely profitable. Adjusting to those players can be more profitable and a lot less noticeable than zeroing in on the Maniac.

And the secondary benefit is if you felt any of those guys, the ATM that everyone else is focusing on stays...

Very nice COTM, thank you!

And this 1000x: Not to derail into storytime too much, but here's my "wow, people suck at adjusting to maniacs" lightbulb moment:

Several years ago, a guy sat down at my 1/2 table with 100bb, and immediately proceeded to shove 5 hands in a row (either an open shove or over limpers), and got folds every time. The 6th time, I called him with 99, he had Q3o or some trash, I doubled up, and he left. No big deal, right? But I was floored by the reactions of the other guys at the table, even the ones who seemed like half-decent players. "Wow, that was a ballsy call." "I didn't think you had a loose call like that in you." etc. etc., not realizing how BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS that call should be. It simply didn't occur to them to do anything but wait for the stone nuts.

There IS a way to play low-variance poker against a maniac: fold every hand

Absolutely, 99 is a high five dealer snap call against that triggerhappy villain. I mean, his range is probably any two cards,ANY TWO- and people comment about not believing you had that "light" call in you with 99? LOL, that is a prime example.

Also what maniacs infact are good at is smelling when tight nitty scared money regs is starting to get uncomfortable or afraid when the pots starts to get big. Especially is this true as the game gets deeper and people are sitting with 200-400 BB in front of them. And when manics use that sixth sense and feel that the nits are getting scared- they just run em over with pure aggression. Maniacs will sniff it out and dont back down for a second.

Its like when you meet an animal who dont know you very good, like a cat or a dog. If you are nervous or uncomfortable when you kneel down to touch them, they feel it and go into playing mode or defensive mode-striking you with their paws for example. On the other hand if you are confident and touch them without hesitation and show them strong body language they love it and feel safe around you. Same principle is essential when it comes to get success with women also, just mentioning it for the record guys

Interesting discussion of a hand with a maniac over in medium-high: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/11...aniac-1514244/

Here's a good one of my own from a few days ago at a 2/5 game. Hero (covers table) is sitting directly to the left of a maniac (who is just drinking/gambling at this point but not always crazy, has $1300), who is in the BB. Hero is a LAG, and the maniac knows I open a ton preflop. Hero opens to 15 with KK UTG. One call, then a semi aggro guy ($670) who had 3bet me a couple hands prior raises to 75. Folds around to Maniac who is laughing telling the guy to his right (SB) that he will call if SB calls. SB folds but Maniac still calls. Hero 4bets to $240. 3bettor tank calls. Maniac snap calls laughing. Flop comes J97hh. Maniac snap shoves $1100 into $720 pot. Hero calls. Other guy tank folds and says he had queens... Board runs out 6Q, no flush. Maniac shows his 34hh... Not only did I take the maniac's $1300, but he also helped convince the other guy to fold what would have been the winning hand. Fun times.

Here's a hand I once played against a maniac.

I call a raise with AJo. The flop comes JJ3 with two clubs. I check-call the flop. The turn is 2. I have no clubs. I check-call the turn. The river is 7. I check-call the river shove. MHIG.

I mentally committed to check-calling down no matter how bad the board ran out because he was that aggressive.

It's cool when it works out, but I still wonder if a table change wouldn't be the most profitable option in general.

If I'm thinking to myself, "OK just pretend you're short-stacking the 5/10 game," I think I would rather rack up and go to the actual 5/10 table, where there's a better chance of doubling or tripling up.

Look at it this way: would you be eager to short-stack the 5/10 game if everybody there was only 10 or 20bb deep?

I can see that, in the long run, you can profit against a big-bettin maniac. Question is though, is there more profit to be had elsewhere. Maybe there isn't, dunno. I wonder.

Nice post DK. Instead of trading stories of playing with maniacs, can we talk about how a whale maniac differs from your run of the mill lag? Or would this be another COTM?

From a pure EV standpoint, assuming you know how to adjust, it's pretty much always better to be at a table with a maniac ainec. Suppose maniac is always raising to 10-20BBs blind. Then you get to short stack without paying the price (10-20BB blinds).

In my specific hand, I could have easily been behind to J9 or 97 or 8T, but I'm pretty sure I had at least 60% equity against his range (postflop). Flipping 60/40 for 200BBs is $200/hand EV (also consider that villain is giving up after flop and losing $240 most of the time with 34hh).

HOWEVER - this thread should probably mention the Kelly criterion and bankroll management. You need to be comfortable losing a bunch of buyins for it to make sense taking 60/40 or 65/35 flips for 200BB+ stacks. Thankfully I was already up well over 3k this night, so I wasn't too concerned about losing.

If your bankroll can't comfortably take a 3-4 BI loss, then yes you should probably get up.

Yes, and that's exactly why maniacs run over tables; most LLSNL players cannot comfortably flip for 200BB+ stacks or lose 3-4 BI without it affecting them. So instead they sit there steadily bleeding chips while waiting for the nuts.

Also, it helps to know your Maniac (and the rest of the table). This can allow you to play medium strength hands as premiums.

For example, I had a Maniac (didn't know him prior to this, he was in town for a wedding) to my right. All others at table were regs. I had noticed this Maniac took things personally and would never back down from what he perceived as a challenge.

Maniac straddles button for $30 (1/2 game). I look down at 88 in sb, and knowing some of the other regs, elect to call. Sure enough 3 others call, making the pot $152 by the time it returns to Maniac who, as per usual, raises $100 on top. I shove, knowing at worst I am flipping, but it is just as likely I am facing 1 over/1 under. The only other player I am even slightly worried about is a LAG reg who knows I am TAG, but will sometimes say **** it. I really don't wanna face 3 overs, but he tank folds, the others snap fold, and Maniac calls, A6 and MHIG.

Me and the good LAG took most of this guy's money, the other regs just couldn't pull the trigger, no matter how much they wanted to.

As a side note, despite most people in that room thinking I am one of the tightest players, I can't count the number of times the whole room has come to watch a board runout in an AI preflop hand with a huge pot where I have gone in with what they consider a "light hand", lol.

This. The maniac brings so much value to the table by tilting everybody else. If he runs over the table and leaves prematurely, the next hour or so is free money time.

I want to get people's thoughts about those rare times when you play with an absolute maniac. Blind raises/blind shoves, etc. do you have a minimum hand you will play against a maniac, or do you just wait for a slight edge and gamble?

Here's one example from earlier this week. Playing 1/3, a player $2k deep makes it $300 blind and promises to call any shoves. Flops around to last player to act, looks at K-10 off. Do you shove for $1500 since you are 60/40 against a random hand? I think that would probably be +EV but poor bankroll management. Thoughts on these situations? Wait for a 65/80% hand or gamble with anything above 50%?

I realize it doesn't answer your exact question, but see the current COTM thread. Lots of good stuff in there.

Your specific question, as you noted, comes down to BRM; can you withstand that kind of variance? Obviously depends a lot on how well rolled you are.

The Kelly Criterion provides a formal way to determine what's good and bad wrt bankroll management. Google/Wikipedia it... In your specific case (60-40), you have a 20% edge on 1 to 1 bet odds, so according to Kelly, you should bet 20% of your bankroll if possible to maximize long term growth. In reality, most people would say Kelly betting is too aggressive (in part due to the error in our own assessment of our edge)... Given these two facts, the absolute minimum bankroll you would want to have in this situation is $7500 to make a $1500 bet with 60-40 odds (realizing that if you lose, you can't make the same bet again). Some people might argue $15k or $30k or more as the minimum bankroll you want to make this bet.

Awesome post with some great insights.

I'd disagree on this point though.

I LIKE seeing the idiots win money from a maniac. They're easy to exploit either now or tomorrow when they come back believing they're good at poker.

I just don't like seeing another competent player stack the maniac.

Personally, in the specific hand you described vs 2 random cards for 500BB, which is pretty significant, I'd probably shove AK or JJ+, maybe TT+. As the amount of BB go up, the stronger the hand I'd want. For example, maybe AT+/77+ vs blind raise for 100BB (and no one left to act after me) and stronger as BB go up.

However, I don't play poker for a living, don't need to pay rent from my earnings, etc. I'd be fine with if I got it in somewhere like a 60:40 favorite or better. I didn't run pokerstove or anything, just what I would do on the spot from experience.

I have seen firsthand a blind shove end up w AA vs. KK for a few hundred BB. It's crazy but it happens, it's just super unlucky.

The max buyin matters too. The reason I would want something quite a bit higher than 50% is you can't buy in as deep as V if he wins. If you lose $1500 in this flip but only win $300 when you reload and win the next flip...you get the point.

One thing a lot of people don't realize when they shy away from those high-variance shoves. They say "I'm going to wait for a better spot." But if you actually do the EV calculations, and see just how profitable that spot is... how likely are you really to get a better spot?

So in your 1/3 hypothetical shoving with 1.5k effective has an EV of about $300. How often do you get to make a 100BB +EV decision in poker? That's getting a full stack in with the other guy drawing dead. That's enormous!