I actually have a feeling that Player A misread his hand and thought he Ad-Kd instead of Ad-Kh. Then his play before the turn card makes a lot more sense.

But this is different when you have one of the loosest 1-2 players you will ever meet at the table..wouldn't it be? Going all in with the nuts makes perfect sense as villain will call with any flush (as he did), two-pair, a set, maybe even with A-K himself.

He raised to $25 which is a bit much for A-K, but accomplished his goal of isolating the maniac. Then he doesn't have to worry as much about two-pair/sets from the other players (relatively much tighter). Then if an Ace or King hits, he can go all in with a reasonable expectation of getting paid off.

Not really, especially the turn. If you had the nuts, why would you overbet the turn? You WANT V to continue calling with his entire range. So you should size accordingly. Even on the flop, he has huge equity versus all V's hands except for a set. Over-betting gets a lot of hands out that you would prefer continue.

I honestly don't have a huge issue with the way A played his hand against what seems to be an extremely loose/passive "maniac". Flop bet was a bit bigger than necessary, but whatever - it sets up for an ok stack to shove... Now that he's put $100 into the pot, the pot is at $200, and effective stacks are $250 behind. So now he hits his K. If the 84s guy is as bad as he seems, I definitely think he'll sometimes call off with worse - hands like 9T or 78 with one diamond.

I'd go so far as to say taking this line with AK against this guy, almost regardless of runout, is likely to show a decent profit. It's certainly not the most profitable line (I prefer to just triple barrel bet/fold these guys at small sizings), but it's a simple way to go.

Also, don't just automatically go passive against a guy simply because they "love to bluff" - that's a big mistake, unless the guy who loves to bluff *really* loves to bluff. I'd rather just play a tighter range, and play a normal/balanced strategy, except go for more thin value, find obvious spots to bluff catch (like missed draws) and bluff catch wide, etc -- i.e., just make sure your range is stronger than theirs at every street, and that money's going into the pot, and you'll do great.

Good advice. I probably too often try to let aggro players hang themselves. It does work - just not as often as you think it's going to. Biggest problem is the really bad LAGtards are few and far between. Some players look crazy aggro - when their opponents keep folding, but who's fault is that? If you keep folding...

Of course as soon as you start checking hands to them and then calling them down they quickly catch on to what you're doing. I've had this frequently - I get one shot at trapping these guys then they shut down and start playing normal LAG/TAG against me while continuing "going crazy" at anyone who'll keep folding.

Yeah I say this as somebody who’s often perceived as a player that “loves to bluff” (I’m a little bluffy/spewy sometimes, but not crazy maniacal). Anyway, what I *really* love is when people adjust by playing weak passive against me. Yes, occasionally somebody will get one or two streets from me by playing passively, and rarely a triple barrel bluff — but more often they’re just playing handicapped by refusing to take aggressive actions and giving themselves multiple ways to win a pot, and getting value when I have a hand that’s strong enough to call but not strong enough to bet. Likewise, I’ve found when I move up in stakes and play against more aggressive opponents that my big leak is becoming too passive. Yes, you do need to have a call button (as well as a check button), but in general you should be pushing the bet or raise button more than the call button - if you don’t, you’re going to be losing.

This doesn’t mean you should be bluffing more and playing wider ranges - don’t try to outlag a lag. Sometimes it means you just need a stronger range.

I'm just saying, suppose he had Ad-Kd. Raising pre-fop to $25 makes some sense. (I've seen a lot of bigger raises with Ace King, especially to protect the hand in later position) The flop has 2 diamonds, so semi bluffing the nuts with 2 overs makes sense and is done a million times a day against average players.
If he had A-K d and the turn was say, Jd completing the nuts, is he going to value bet for say $125 (If villain calls, he is committed to call down to the river anyways). Might as well shove.

Wouldn't they adjust by playing tighter and only playing in position?

this is a 1=2 game with a 200 buyin

open raising 25% of your stack with Ace high is a sure road to brokesville.
what are you supposedly protecting ??????

do you open raise to 25 every time you open ???? or are you giving away bet sizing tells???
your not semi bluffing with the nuts , you have Ace high far from the nuts

there is so much more wrong with this thinking I don't know where to start

Math is harder than 1/2

typo
raise was 25$
12.5 %

I’m not even sure what he’s trying to say