Good discussion. There are clearly people on both sides of the fence RE: fold/call/4bet pre. In retrospect, I like a small 4! to take control of the pot. I'm working on widening my 4! range against LAGs because I don't do it very often and it looks super strong live. People always think AA.

So, the pot on the turn is about 680. I have about 1075 back.

I felt committed for some reason. I thought the T was a good card. I don't know why I bet so big, but I thought maybe only AQ would pay me off here. I bet 500, and he insta-jams. I really hate my hand now, but the pot is ~2250 and it's ~575 to me and I don't think I can fold. He has TT for turned set of tens.

Looking back either check back turn or small b/f works I think. I got impatient. I don't think he would c/r turn w/ air or just an ace, because the call OTF had to scare him if he didn't have an ace/set.

Thanks for the comments guys. I don't get stacked often so when I do, I'm usually very hard on myself and really go back to see what I did wrong. In this case, I think I could have avoided getting stacked but still would have lost a decent chunk of money if he bet the river Q.

I understand folding this pre. The arguments are solid, & I also understand keeping OP reads in perspective. If we feel compelled to give him strictly AK/JJ+, yeah, easy fold.

With that said, it's not so cut & dried iyam. Just because an aggressive V doesn't 3b *light* doesn't mean AJs/KQs/88+ aren't likelihoods (or at worst AQ/99+), especially considering this guy seems to be playing wildly LAG by all other accounts. And if OP has seen him do stuff like "bluff raise turn," "in a bad spot", that should mean our implied odds are actually quite good here & we should be happy to flat w/ ~ 40-50% equity, position, & a manageable SPR.

This is a pretty bad mentality, tbh. Risking 200bbs with TPTK in a 3BP against Bozo the Aggro Clown should just be another day at the office.

Ya, I think it's hard to get across on the internet how spewy it looked like this guy was playing. And that's why when these maniacs are running good, they are dangerous b/c nobody ever thinks they can have anything. He was cultivating an image quite well and definitely had everyone (including myself) at the table confused.

I think what's hard is that these guys actually know what they are doing to a certain extent. Like he put in 800 OTT w/ the big draw, one of his opponents (there were 3 people OTT) put in less than the all-in and this V was very adamant about getting an exact count so he knew how much was in the pot. Then, after the hand I asked him what he had and he said, "clubs and a wheel draw" and then he sheepishly said, "yes, I played a bad hand pre." So he wasn't dumb and definitely not a beginner.

Anyway, I lost more than I should have and I'm going to be more careful in these kind of spots in the future and play pot control b/c LAGs don't like to pay off lightly b/c they know when somebody plays back at them, it's time to shut down. I think he was going to shut down anyway OTT but he hit his miracle card this time.

well, it was about 280 BB. But I feel like I overplayed the hand a smidgen. It was definitely a cooler but I didn't have to lose my whole stack. OR maybe it's standard and I'm overthinking it.

I don't like putting my money in bad. And I feel like I got outplayed and "outdynamicked" and that hurts my pride a bit. That's all I'm saying.

Not a 4Bet pre

Giant CBet from stuck villain....

Flat in position is balanced, not sure how much we should be valuing balance in these late night live games...but I do like it. Let him continue repping a big Ace with TT+

We had him crushed so well played.

Turn action needs to be re-evaluated. Youre not commited here, only committed in limit games with 12:1 river calls. Even then you can fold if you think you are beat.

Range defense vs capable villains is another matter...

Also, this is not a NL game. Many adjustments need to be made for Spread Limit: getting it in ahead (see Mr. $300's short stack strategy), fast playing flops, not being a donk and paying off most 5:1 river calls, embracing the variance, reducing number of small pairs/set mines and suited connectors because of reduced implied odds etc. etc.

BS.

Its not standard to stackoff 300 BB with top pair unless villain is a true maniac with a very wide stackoff range this deep. Just putting the stamp "standard cooler" on the hand is lazyness, and is very likely gonna make you stagnate. That kind of attitude is indeed a big part of what makes alot of players stopping their process, stopping to develope as players. Everytime they lose a big pot they just say to themsef "Nothing i could have done there" or "cooler i cant get away from" or "these kind of setups happens to me all the time".

Regardless if the hand really is indeed standard or not though, its wise as OP did to stop up and pause the clock when you lose a big hand like this- and post it in the forum to get other peoples opinion on the hand. Its like a compass needle, it gets the reflections going- and very often the discussion as follows gives you some fresh nuances to think about.

The point isnt neccesarily to map out the mistakes you did (it isnt even certain that OP did any mistakes just because he lost the hand, because that isnt really the main point). The main point is to keep you grounded/on the right track, and that you dont develope leaks over time that you possibly isnt aware of.Stopping the clock, make some reflections and post the hand here (or talk about it with other good players) is a way to keep yourself in check.

We don't need to get into a whole thing over something so subjective as attitude, but just to clarify: it's never a bad thing to put a lot of thought into hands, both in-hand and in post-assessment. I'll highlight the issues in what I quoted:

The second one's the big one. This is the definition of results oriented. Post the hand here for sure, but don't do it assuming you're out to find out where you should have folded.

The first one is probably not worth getting in an argument about in LLSNL, but you should be used to losing stacks at some point, particularly against whales. Players like these provide an immense winrate opportunity. You should not be out to minimize damage. You should be maximizing opportunity. (You should, obviously, still be playing sound poker [which doesn't often involve folding TPTK with a 5.5:1 SPR on a double-suited, SD-heavy board]).

Now for the more strategy relevant part of the post:

1) 300bb isn't very deep when there's 5bb opens and 5x 3!s. (In theory, that means ranges are narrower, but that obviously doesn't apply here.)

2) Villain is a true maniac. He's bullying the table with 60% of ATC. OP can talk all he wants about how he was a thinking maniac, but that doesn't change the fact his ranges are absurdly wide. You don't get the opportunity to play IP in 60% of hands; you don't play 60% of the hands if you're bowing out preflop whenever there's an EP/MP open; you don't win most pots without showdown AND play 60% of hands AND be picking your spots. Dude is a maniac.

Well, the "maniac" just got OP to stick in over 200 BB drawing dead on the turn: just saying. Its resultoriented thinking to illustrate a point, but even though this guy is playing alot of hands preflop- we have no real reason to believe from what we know that the guy is sticking in 300 BB stacks very wide postflop after 3 betting pre wich also narrows his range alot.

Besides that, i guess we have to agree to disagree for the most part. What i do think is a very good point is that maniacs is a golden opportunity for us to maximize EV and boost our winrate=wich will mean getting stacked more often if were running bad or get sucked out on by the maniac alot.

But even so, i appreciate you eleborating on your opinions and clarify what you ment though.

IMO, OP played 2 of the streets wrong, so he is correct that he should be reviewing the hand to see if he couldve played it better. Kudos to OP.

I agree with Petrucci. There are so many players I know who lose tons of big hands and say "oh well, nothing I couldve done there" and then they wonder why they have 20 buy in downswings and some other good players never seem to lose anywhere near that even when running bad.

Vs turn check was tricky, not sure what I think about it since it's kind of obvious you have an ace or a draw. Anyway I can see why he has so much success running the table over, regs here fold AK in position to him!

I kind of like check behind turn more than a small bet since I don't know how to react vs an maniac in this spot. We can also bomb a blank river with more info if we want. It leaves more options. I'm discounting a lot of fd's since I expect him to keep barreling those.

I don't think there's any way I'm folding AK preflop to this guy. I'd probably just call because I have position and can see what happens. If I miss and get c-bet out of the pot so be it. 4! would be too aggressive imo unless I have more history with villain.

As played the turn would be a tough spot for me, I understand the line you took considering you're probably best and there are two flush draws out there.

Against these type of players I tend to be more cautious, so would probably check behind and reevaluate the river. I also think two pair could be a likely holding for these type of guys. I've seen maniacs 3! with AT, A9 or hell A-rag.

Well played OP. In nlhe I'd say b/c 350 ott and gii otr, but given the 500 max bet rule, AP looks good. Folding to this dude here is just bad.

Id like to know how everyone turned this villain into a "maniac" when OP said he plays 60-70% of hands and mostly for a raise but doesnt 3 bet lite. OP never said anything about him being a maniac. OPs description of villain and his posted reads dont make him anything close to a maniac that you should be stacking off for almost 300BBs with 1 pair.

I swear the more threads I read here the less I worry about poker dying in the future. The majority of advice given out is just atrocious.

I'm never betting this turn, and I'm calling any reasonable river bet.

Anyone playing aggressive while VPIPing 60% of hands is a maniac. There's no two ways around that statement. Poker's a game of frequencies.

The one hang-up from the description is that he doesn't 3! light. Again, I'm going out on a limb here saying that what that really means is that he hasn't seen him 3! light in (going out on a limb again) a ~100 hand sample. And even so, the 3! history bears out that he does 3! for light value.

I feel comfortable assuming his maniac tendencies supersede the paper-thin Bayesian case we have that he's a nitty 3!er ... which to this point is "He's 3! literally one less time than he would have if he were an aggro 3!er."

Raising 60% of hands is -EV for sure but theres a big difference between a guy who raises way too much and a maniac who will shovel 300BBs into a pot with less than TPTK.

We have no evidence that this villain will or has ever been seen throwing chips all over the place like a "maniac" does

He's already bluff raised a turn in a "poorly thought out" hand and has r/c'ed K5o and floated with a gutshot to the dummy end of a 4-straight. This just based off the small handful of example HHs we've got. Something tells me he's liable to show up to the latter streets with wide ranges in big pots.

Do me a favor. Load up Flopzilla. Put in the best possible 60% range you can. Punch in random flops and turns. Come up with ranges where villain can play aggressively on those boards (let's say 65% bet on each street). I know this isn't relevant to this HH in particular, but imagine that turn range being raised. What percentage of that range are you realistically continuing with? If you were forced to continue with 50% of it, how's your range doing? Where does TPTK rank in all this.

Again, poker's a game of frequencies. I know we get hung up on labels and the asian-ness of players and whether their tie is silk or whatever, but it's pretty simple: if you're playing 60% of hands aggressively, your ranges are ****. If you want to guess at whether this player's going to be the "bloat the pot then fold an absurd amount the second the last 140bbs go in" type of maniac or the "go down swinging" type of maniac, be my guest. (And this is even assuming any one maniac has a static playstyle, which is wrong to begin with). In either case, TPTK is making an truckload of money in big pots against them.

I don't know what to tell you. This hand isn't close. Hero can never fold after this flop.

Show me where OP says this guy continues to play most of his hand aggressively. All he said is the guy raises a lot preflop. He even checked the turn with a set of Js so hes not plowing chips into the pot in every hand. Thats not my definition of a maniac.

I never said hero should fold after the flop. I said he should fold preflop and I said he should check the turn.

You can obviously read my mind, cause i am very often thinking along the same lines.

Everybody seems so caught up in their own head and the predecided knowledge/how to play poker/how they think a certain villain plays like a maniac for stacks without any evidence at all besides villain raising alot preflop- wich in their mind making it a standard sigh to put in 300 BB with one pair.

And this amount of bad advice is on 2+2, where people have an above average interest in poker. You can only imagine what the average LLSNL villain is bringing to the table when it comes to big leaks and countless -EV plays.

The future of livepoker (at least for sure smaller stakes like 1-3 or 2-5) is very bright the way i see it, considering we are way way finished with the boom following Moneymaker and alot less horrible fish money being thrown around.

Flop is a call or a 4bet. Turn is a bet/stack off. Both standard, not close. Wide ranges pre and yet they've always got it is GG nonsense.

LOL...This post should go right along with....20 buy in losing streaks are normal and happen to everyone.

Whether Hero should be b/c ott or not, this is what the OP said:

If you want to use the sole fact he played a set earlier OTT as a check as the reason to bet/fold (or the fact these types of lines are nutted in general), fine, fair enough. But I think arguing that his profile (60+ VPIP, 20+ PFR, makes turn bluffs that are "pretty poorly thought out", is "running over the table") is anything other than over-aggressive and/or he could never make moves preflop/postflop, is close to MUBSY.