Seat 1: - (€9.70)
Seat 2: - (€20.51)
Seat 3: Villain [BB] (€39.03)
Seat 4: - (€10.47)
Seat 5: Hero [MP] (€45.02)
Seat 6: [CO] (€9.71)

Hero has A♣️ 9♣️ A♥️ 6♥️

*** Preflop ***
fold
Hero raises to €0.35
CO calls €0.35
-fold-
-fold-
Villain raises to €1.45
Hero raises to €4.75
-fold-
Villain calls €3.30

Flop (€9.60) 7♣️ 6♦︎ 2♥️

Villain checks
Hero bets €7.20
Villain calls €7.20

Turn (€23.57) 9♦︎
Villain bets €24.30
Hero raises to €33.07, and is all-in
Villain calls €2.78, and is all-in


the villain is a maniac that plays the vast majority of hands and aggressively. no stats as this was on Unibet, but they had stacked off pre 3W vs the blinds for 100BB when BB 3b and SB backraised with [965]3 after opening MP, which should give you an idea.

strategy assessment: (after 30h or so) they are highly aggressive and a frequent bluffer but also greatly overvalue made hands (they led flush-bringing turn 4W with broadway in 2nd position after A-high flop checked through, firing river HU when a reg called turn IP). their strategy postflop appears to be chasing draws (either by betting or calling) to overplay them and to bluff if they miss or when opponents show weakness, and firing made hands of low to medium-high strength without much thought for opponent ranges or future streets. despite their aggression, they appeared to play very strong hands passively (as seen at showdown when they XC and X river with high flush after flush-bringing turn, and as i inferred from other hands that didn't reach showdown)

psychological info: they use emojis constantly, usually to criticise play or needle opponents, but also to praise play when an opponent tricks them. they overestimate their ability to read opponents and might believe that their nerve/will to be aggressive gives them an edge over the table. they like to play table captain and probably get a rush from it, so actions are impulsive and reckless. they seemed to have little to no awareness and not to be a thinking player "on tilt" but rather a complete gambler chasing the thrill, so probably not particularly emotionally invested in outcome or image.

i am pretty sure i made a mistake here, but it is not an easy situation to simulate or assess and it would be helpful to know how big the mistake was.

i ran a sim giving them a preflop range of 70% excluding AA. for the flop i gave them any open-ender, certain gutshots (like JJT8 for example), any 7 without pair or 7 and a pair if it had other equity like a gutshot or 88, any 6 with a gutshot or with two overcards and no ace excluding pair hands that don't contain open-enders or 88, and any unpaired 2 with two overcards+BDFD and no ace or with any gutshot+ two BDFD. i then excluded all two pair/sets and all wraps, which were sure to checkraise or donk flop, as well as 987 which i thought likely to checkraise, there would have been other checkraises too but i left it at that. i then modified the range for the turn by narrowing down to 9s up, all straights, all 88, all 98, all 99, all TT+FD as well as a number of other hands with a FD as they were sure to see this as an opportune moment to bluff AA as well as an opportune moment to stack off vs AA (lol). i can't know how many nut hands they would trap with after so few hands, most likely at least those with diamonds and probably some 99 as well, but i included all of these in their donking range as i couldn't estimate.

the sim came up with just over 33% equity, but i was probably quite conservative with their range on all streets. rake is 3% and cap is €1.50, so i was getting 1.856:1 and needed 35%.

my thoughts on the flop were that my AA was on the higher end and many turns would provide a very profitable stack off, while a bet would also make their range easier to read and play against and i could probably stack off profitably if they checkraised, as i was blocking top two and 2nd set, whereas checking and facing two bets from a completely unreadable range seemed like it would be too much trouble. i bet less than needed for them to shove to discourage it though as i preferred to have more info when stacking off. the turn was about as atrocious as possible, and i ended up not being able to find a fold as it seeemed too close and they were very opportunistic.

all thoughts welcome, i want to improve in these situations as they can be very profitable ones but are also difficult to prepare for. i'm curious what people would do if checked to as well, given that so much of their range that is ahead is donking all in. Villain ended up having 9755 with backdoor hearts (adding this only for info on opponent).

You could argue vs this player type it’s best to crai, especially on a board he’s gonna hit way harder than us. Pot / call works fine too.

Turn is good enough to gii considering he’s going to shove lots of draws.

i was in position. when you say crai do you mean check the flop and then raise turns when they lead? or were you under the impression that i was out of position?

Oops my mistake. Pot / call would be my play on flop.

How transparent is your holding? Aggressive/maniac Players like to have the betting lead. Do you need to 'pot' PF to isolate or would something smaller do the same? How much wider 'could' you be with a smaller PF raise? It may not matter since some V don't pay attention to those details, so bigger is better.

Why wouldn't you go 'pot' on the Flop AP? Blocking a 6 and 9, two BD flush and AA. If not potting I go smaller to see if V shoves.

Personally against a maniac .. I just slow play everything and let them do all the betting. You pretty much know they are going to dump and at least you get to see the Flop before the pot is bloated. It's like AA in NL .. you win a small one or lose a big one when you tell the table you have AA by 3-4 betting. Without a very high VPiP yourself it becomes pretty easy to play against, so you need to be ready to ride the variance or play passively.

Against the rest of the table, yes .. pile in and make them know they are playing for stacks. But when 400bb deep I typically let the maniac hang themselves when I know I've got a decent grip on the hand. They don't fold! And unless you're into flipping for that many chips I like to see a Flop a little more under the radar. GL

Turn is prob a fold vs most - I can't see 89 playing this way, a lot of straight draws got there, he'd have to get crazy with 45 here or have a pair + diamonds and get super aggro.

The answer to that is that it isn't actually transparent, but would be transparent to this player. against them squeezing i would be 4betting quite a wide range including many hands that would have a straight or set here (AT87/875/985 ds, TT99-8877 ds etc). but after 30h they hadn't seen that so they don't know that and - i assume - would be putting me exclusively on AA in their thinking. As I said I had been cultivating a tight/solid image for this player with fewer opens/3bets and less flop CBetting.

I could see a reason for slowplaying pre but tbh this player will not fold to any 4bet and will call (as seen) stupidly wide on the flop and frequently donkshove turn, so it seemed like potting was the most profitable action with such good AA? If it were single-suited or much less connected I would have flatted for sure.

Regarding slowplaying, what do you think about checking flop to shove club, heart, A or 6 turns vs inevitable bluffs and evaluate on others? I reckon their range would be Much wider bluffing turns and rivers after seeing a check on the flop and also I doubt they would fold anything with a flush draw to a shove on the turn.

Appreciate the feedback. I have played against the same alias since and can put them firmly in the camp of "aggression a good player makes". I think they would be quite likely to donkshove any diamond plus pair hand or 88:9,7,6. At the time this was probably a mistake but would your assessment change knowing that?