Aside from the OP, the discussion between you and AsianNit that resonated with me. I try to bite my tongue when things don't make sense and figure out how to adjust best.

I think this can be an invaluable lesson, especially because I think I may be the rampant stupidity!

Thanks DK Barrel for the COTM. Thinking about better ways to exploit the players at your table is always a welcome concept. I have definitely been falling into the Wuss Category lately.

Played against the house whale/maniac last night. In general I play against maniacs the way this suggested made about 700-800 slanksy dollars... Not so much real dollars

But actually great post and I think you hit it in the head talking about people's bad adjustments vs Maniacs. People undervalue calling down light, isolating, and squeezing fish who are trying to see a flop with 86 for 10bb.

I think this is a fairly common characteristic of the maniac's psyche. At least, IMO, this is one of a few archetypal maniacs. To such a person, playing poker is essentially his opportunity to project the following (without regard to whether it's true): "I am rich and have no regard for the value of money. I am going to establish my dominance over you peons that are not rich enough not to care about the value of money by running you over. If you challenge my dominance, I will push even harder, no matter whether I have cards to back it up. I don't need cards, anyway; I will use my massive manhood on you."

Coming to terms with that aspect of the maniac's brain--that your aggression is a threat to his dominance--may help the adjustment process. Internally verbalizing, "OMG, this guy thinks my playing back at him is a challenge to his manhood!!" may make it easier to GII when you know the maniac will tilt-shove with his K2s when you re-pop him with ATo.

(Just make sure that's the archetypal maniac you're playing against!)

Had the good fortune of landing directly to the left of a Maniac last night, who had apparently only been at the table one orbit before I got there.

He looked at his cards and he was either playing or folding. If her was playing, his standard pre-flop raise was 12bb. If there was a raise in front of him, he re-raised to 25-30bb.

My first two orbits at any table, I am super tight, so I have a chance to see how the table was running without me and determine how I will be playing at that table. Those two orbits were very interesting, watching the table adjust to the Maniac. Before my two orbit observation was over, solid regulars were calling the 12bb raises and 30bb re-raises out of position with just slightly better than any two cards.

I personally love Maniac tables, not just for action from the Maniac, but to capitalize on the mistakes the Maniac triggers from the rest of the table. In my first hour, I watched a loose calling station regular, who had 250bb in front of him when I sat down, win pots totaling over 7500bb then going broke and rebuy. One seat opened up with a stack off and no rebuy. One seat opened up when the player got his two buyins back, with an announcement that he was leaving while he was even. We picked up two players from the after work crowd, who buy in at the table minimum with their entire plan consisting of shoving before or on the flop.

I had been there for two hours, looking down at mostly J3, Q2 and 84. I had been involved in only two small pots and was up 70bb, with 220bb in front of me. The table was bloated with over 3000bb on a 9 seat table with a buy in cap of 150bb. I have spent two hours watching 300bb pots bounce around the table with only one player maintaining a stack over 600bb.

I called a 10bb raise, from our Maniac, on the button with TT and saw the flop with four other callers and a 60bb pot. Hit a T on the flop with an A and a flush draw. Called Maniac's 75bb bet and saw the turn with one other caller and a pot of 285bb. Turn is a T and Maniac shoves all in for well more that the 125bb I had left, I call and so does our remaining player, who has me covered but not the Maniac. River completes the flush draw and the other player tables A high flush for the side pot and Maniac tables AA. Yes, I more than trippled up here, but the lesson is that even Maniacs get real hands. I was in real trouble on the flop with an under set and two outs.

Bad lesson, imo Square Rounder. Yes, maniacs get real hands, but that's why playing with them is high variance. I know you weren't saying "wait for quads," or even "wait for a set," but imo you should either have re-raised TT pre, or been willing to stack off with a pair of Ts on a lot of boards if the Maniac will triple barrel ATC.

I am not sure how you can say "Bad lesson" and then agree with the 'lesson' that Maniacs get real hands. It is really more of a statement of the obvious, but an obvious reality that you can tend to talk yourself out of believing in the moment.

I could have justified re-raising pre, but I think I would call again in the same spot. I had spent two hours watching the table call raises and re-raises with such a wide range of hands that it was very difficult to put a range on many hands. Yes, it would have been my first re-raise over our Maniac, but in the best circumstance, I am not sure I can count on most players to even realize that, and after playing the prior two hours, I was not confident in a re-raises ability to thin the field or narrowly define anyone's hand. As those are the two primary reasons I raise, there did not seem to be enough value in a re-raise to justify putting in the extra chips. Building a pot, which is a much lower consideration in my raises, was a non-factor at a Maniac table, where pots were regularly resulting in all in bets.

I am sure someone will be critical, but I was set mining with TT. With the action that could be expected behind me and the action I could anticipate if I hit my set, I had implied odds well beyond 8 to 1.

Heads up with the Maniac, sure, there are a good number of boards I stack off with TT to AA. It is the field of callers with Ax, Kx, Qx, or Jx that would concern me more than the Maniac. Had the T on the flop been an over, it would have only made a difference to me. Against five hands, I feel pretty good about folding TT, on a flop with two overs, to Maniac's flop bet. Not because I do not believe I am beating a good portion of the Maniac's range, but I am likely safe in assuming at least one of the five hands I am still facing, is way ahead on a flop with two overs to TT.

Why call the flop bet when I made my set? Well, the greedy bastard rule played its part, but the purpose of a raise there would be to price out the flush draw. However, after Maniac's flop bet, the pot is 135bb. If I shove my remaining 210bb and we assume that anyone considering a call will be including Maniac's nearly certain call, more likely re-raise shove, the first caller is getting 2.64 to 1 on the call. Not the right price for a flush draw with two to come, but well inside the bad calls that become typical at a Maniac table. After one caller and anticipating the Maniac, every subsequent caller is actually getting the right price to chase the flush. Add in that with a set, I have only two fewer outs, to quads or a boat, on the turn and one more out on the river than the flush draw. Taken together, the value of my shove on the flop is substantially reduced.

The play that shows the bad calls at a Maniac table best is the flush draw calling Maniac's all in, with a caller in front of him, on a paired board. Even ignoring the paired board, he was still getting a worse price to chase his flush than my shove on the flop would have given him.

If you were heads up with the Maniac, re-raise pre and shove on the flop. But the real problem at a Maniac table, is the adjustments of the rest of the table.

Had the turn completed the flush, I would have had the opportunity to at least consider getting away from my set. Not saying I could have, especially considering that anticipating a call behind me gives me better than the 4 to 1 price that would justify chasing quads/boat.

Just to add a point about the particular kind of maniac who likes to shove blind preflop or plays blind aggressively to the river, etc.

Medium pocket pairs go up in value and big Aces go down slightly in value. Against a random hand, 77 is slightly better than AK (66 is slightly worse).

I'd generally be happy stacking off deep with 60% equity (less if I can reload to the same stack size). So something like A8+, KT+, 55+, but it's still obviously profitable to play a tighter range. Make sure he definitely hasn't looked at his cards though.

Nice cotm dk

It seems like a lot of the scenarios involve the hero getting heads up with a maniac villain with an edge. In my experience, if I make a reraise, even for a substantial sum, it is like throwing chum to the sharks.

Something like, in a loose 1-2 game, maniac (with lets say $300) raises to $25 pf, there are 3 callers, it gets back to me and I have my $200 buy in. So there's $100 in the pot, I shove (with say AKs) for $200, now there's $300, maniac calls, now there's about $500, and the other 3 original callers are getting odds to call as well. Now I'm playing a bloated pot with a hand that might be ahead of the maniac's range but not as strong against multiple callers.

In these cases, is it better to limp and make moves post flop?

No. People don't fold post flop if they're playing a maniac and hit any piece. Don't make moves.

Everyone calling your preflop shove is a great outcome. Sure you win the pot less often, but when you do, it's a much larger pot, so your EV actually improves. I shoved pre in a splash pot with AK a few weeks ago and the splash money in there (like a maniac's money would) ledd too several callers with weak hands. As my hand stood up, I won a 400bb pot. Sure, it would have been disappointing to lode to 67s, but what a profitable situation.

How much more +ev spot do you want than to get AsKs all in pre 4 ways vs wide capped ranged

just grab your xyz and 3-bet. that's all you've gotta know.

I see what you are saying, but I guess my main point is when you are playing with a maniac in a multiway pot, you have to beat everyone, not just the maniac. Maybe the answer is to have a larger chip stack so you can more effectively isolate. In this case, maybe it's better to be left of the maniac so when he raises, you can isolate before there's any other action?

Also if AK is 50/50 against an underpaid, it's clearly much lower expected win vs. 3 other opponents. And if you are all in pf, there's no other way to influence the action.

If I know the table well, left or right doesn't matter too much (although right always allows you to trap callers in between, who might call HIS raise, but maybe not so much yours, depends on stack size, as you said, and your table image). If I don't know the table, I'd much rather be right.

If all opponents had underpairs, AK does better against three opponents than one.

If you can win 25% of the time vs 4 opponents you're still coming out WAY ahead. It's not about winning more often than you lose. It's about winning more money the times you win than you lose all the times you get beat by the field.

Where are you playing that people are insta calling a $200 3bet? Sounds like a frikin gold mine.

Well I can't reveal that. Other day I'm on the button w AsKs. I make it $25. Maniac villain 1 calls. Maniac villain 2 calls. Flop: K98 rainbow. V1 bets $75. V2 makes it $150. Back to me w TPTK against two maniacs. I have $300 left. Ship or fold?

I fold. V1 had 98. V2 had 88. Live to fight another day.

Guessing you are under rolled? Fist pumping getting it in with AK vs multiple maniacs. You are obviously way ahead. Then fold top top vs maniacs? I'm loving that spot if they are as crazy as you say. If not underrolled, you need to pick up your gamble imo.

Yes. Good point. I think I need to play deeper and embrace the variance.

This x100.

I get a boner even thinking about getting allin pre with AK against 4 maniacs with capped weak ranges. Its just so ridicilous fat valuespot its unreal.

If you hesitate to jam it in in those kind of spots you are underrolled or playing money you cant afford to lose, its that simple.

I find that when I get it in in such spots with maniacs the blow to my mental game afterwards isnt worth coinflipping just to try to win 25% of the time, i mean the knowledge that im winning longterm doesnt help me with the short term blow to my mindset and I end up trying to outplay said maniacs too often leading to at least 3x-4x more losses, also being overrolled compounds this, i snap call with top pair top kicker when i could have got away, being underrolled actually forces me to wait for better spots but obviously this is flawed and probably because of that ive never actually been able to remain overrolled lol, but maniacs are a lot of what i play with both in my private games and at the local casino, and when they donk into you for potsize bets with draws and midpair and 2pair+ looking just as strong either way because they dont care, it gets extremely tricky and rollercoastery very fast, at least for me. I know Ill be able to ignore all of that if im always overrolled but im having trouble building that roll i think because naturally im too aggressive and egoistic as a person and i can think several levels deep in this game which is what I love I grew up as a chess player, but obviously this is super counterproductive in the low stakes game im playing and i have a very solid understanding of all of that, but its not enough to help me avoid the mental swings from most of the opponents i have to face i know its less profitable but to start out a good roll i wish i could just play against some tighter players lol whatever flawed thinking

also its obviousts that a lot of my problems of attempting to outplay wrong maniacal villian at the wrong time are related to my tendency to think several levels deeper than them, i know very well that they are thinking on level 2 but my mind insists on wandering into level 4 its annoying and shows a lack of discipline

Great post OP. Havent read all posts so not sure if it has been mentioned but think is important to consider how maniac at the table affects other opponents and how their game has changed. Ie to also focus on other opponents changes and shifts and not just the maniac.