Quote:
Originally Posted by Garick
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.