Maniacs
 

I been playing with alot of maniacs recently. These guys are raising it 85-90% of the time preflop and will even reraise it to isolate the raiser.

On the flop they will always continuation bet. Usually it will be for the pot. I was wondering if anyone had any advice on this.

Re: Maniacs
 

wait for good hands?

Re: Maniacs
 

[ QUOTE ]
wait for good hands?

[/ QUOTE ]

yea should i reraise him preflop with good hands? Then I can isolate it HUs

Re: Maniacs
 

[ QUOTE ]
I been playing with alot of maniacs recently. These guys are raising it 85-90% of the time preflop and will even reraise it to isolate the raiser.

On the flop they will always continuation bet. Usually it will be for the pot. I was wondering if anyone had any advice on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rolf Slotboom's book has a big section on this. His advice is to buy in short, sit on the maniac's <u>right</u>, and play a strictly limp/re-raise style. And do your best to get it all in pre-flop when you have a better hand than the maniacs range (aces, kings, nice double-suited rundowns, suited broadways, etc.)

If you're going to buy in full, don't sit to his right. Find a seat a few spots downstream so you can take advantage and isolate him. Let him hang himself when he has good hands.

In "Ace on the River" Barry Greenstein says the common response to a maniac is to tighten up. Greenstein says the change you should make is to loosen up and re-raise more frequently.

Re: Maniacs
 

Yea I did read that quote on Greenstein. It is alot easier to do in holdem.

Re: Maniacs
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I been playing with alot of maniacs recently. These guys are raising it 85-90% of the time preflop and will even reraise it to isolate the raiser.

On the flop they will always continuation bet. Usually it will be for the pot. I was wondering if anyone had any advice on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rolf Slotboom's book has a big section on this. His advice is to buy in short, sit on the maniac's <u>right</u>, and play a strictly limp/re-raise style. And do your best to get it all in pre-flop when you have a better hand than the maniacs range (aces, kings, nice double-suited rundowns, suited broadways, etc.)

If you're going to buy in full, don't sit to his right. Find a seat a few spots downstream so you can take advantage and isolate him. Let him hang himself when he has good hands.

In "Ace on the River" Barry Greenstein says the common response to a maniac is to tighten up. Greenstein says the change you should make is to loosen up and re-raise more frequently.

[/ QUOTE ]

It should be an insta-ban to advertise Slotboom's advice in this forum.

Re: Maniacs
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wait for good hands?

[/ QUOTE ]

yea should i reraise him preflop with good hands? Then I can isolate it HUs

[/ QUOTE ]

I play the maniac style mayself, but my best advice for playing against this type of player is to develop a fairly tight image at the table and then (assuming you have position on villain) 3bet his raises with hands in the range of AA-QQxx and any run-down 4567 and higher, pretty much hands that look to take down big pots if they hit. The reason I advocate this type of raising range is because raising only high suited pockets with a tight image is a surefire way to go broke; your hands are see-through. Raising low-high run-downs though, lets you bluff boards like 229, AK7, etc since even a maniac will generally respect a tight player's pre-flop 3bet.

Re: Maniacs
 

[ QUOTE ]
Rolf Slotboom's book has a big section on this. His advice is to buy in short, sit on the maniac's <u>right</u>

[/ QUOTE ]

the problem with this is maniac will probably get up and leave once you limp r/r once. IMO its far better to buy in full and sit to his left, then 3 bet any hand you feel is ahead of his range (as mentioned in Gordo's post)

this way you can work on getting his entire stack rather than just 10-20% of it

Re: Maniacs
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rolf Slotboom's book has a big section on this. His advice is to buy in short, sit on the maniac's <u>right</u>

[/ QUOTE ]

the problem with this is maniac will probably get up and leave once you limp r/r once.

[/ QUOTE ]

???

Re: Maniacs
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wait for good hands?

[/ QUOTE ]

yea should i reraise him preflop with good hands? Then I can isolate it HUs

[/ QUOTE ]

I play the maniac style mayself, but my best advice for playing against this type of player is to develop a fairly tight image at the table and then (assuming you have position on villain) 3bet his raises with hands in the range of AA-QQxx and any run-down 4567 and higher, pretty much hands that look to take down big pots if they hit. The reason I advocate this type of raising range is because raising only high suited pockets with a tight image is a surefire way to go broke; your hands are see-through. Raising low-high run-downs though, lets you bluff boards like 229, AK7, etc since even a maniac will generally respect a tight player's pre-flop 3bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

^^^^Listen to this man. Excellent advice.


[ QUOTE ]
It should be an insta-ban to advertise Slotboom's advice in this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

I second this.

Re: Maniacs
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
It should be an insta-ban to advertise Slotboom's advice in this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]
I second this.

[/ QUOTE ]Sc000t and Gordo (and others of a like mind set) - Here’s a quote from Mason Malmuth, used with his permission, on why he started these forums in the first place:
[ QUOTE ]
The idea was to have vigorous debate without insults, and to also have a little fun.

[/ QUOTE ]While I can understand how some of you feel about the short stack strategy, you are going to encounter it in actual play, and probably more and more. It is in your best interests to be able to cope with it.

This forum is a place for you to learn about short-stack strategy and perhaps learn or develop a successful counter strategy. You should appreciate ChuckyB (or anyone else) who politely disagrees with you here regarding strategy or tactics. It is to your benefit to read that opposing viewpoint.

Sometimes I can't tell if you're kidding or not - and then I have to treat your response, perhaps seemingly naively, as though you are serious.

Best Wishes

Buzz
Moderator, Omaha forum

Re: Maniacs
 

They were semi-joking. There is real frustration when players who are not at the very beginning of learning the game want advice while short-stacking. Short-stacking to play a level than one is not rolled makes it harder not easier to learn how to play at the higher level because short stack hand selection and strategy is different that if one expects to play preflop, flop, and turn at least with hands. They tend to vent this frustration by teasing the posters. One solution is that they could avoid posting on threads that they believe involve shortstack play or tactic questions. I would point out that when one asks advice of others it is important to recognize when the question will offend those that are being asked. It is generally not wise to ask a devout Catholic ob-gyn about abortion procedures or a devout muslim about his favorite alcoholic beverage. Likewise, those posting in this forum about short-stacking should not be surprised to receive critical and sometimes unfortunately ill-worded responses.

Re: Maniacs
 

[ QUOTE ]
They were semi-joking.

[/ QUOTE ]

They would probably be fine with someone getting banned for advocating short-stacking... which is a shame. I agree with Buzz that the time of anti-shortstackers would be better used developing counter-tactics to short-stackers (although they don't seem to think they any).


[ QUOTE ]
I would point out that when one asks advice of others it is important to recognize when the question will offend those that are being asked. It is generally not wise to ask a devout Catholic ob-gyn about abortion procedures or a devout muslim about his favorite alcoholic beverage. Likewise, those posting in this forum about short-stacking should not be surprised to receive critical and sometimes unfortunately ill-worded responses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah... I get your point but this is a bit extreme. Also, this is the 'Omaha High' forum, not the '100BB+ Omaha High' forum. Until short-stacking is banned in the FAQ section I will be happy to discuss it.

Re: Maniacs
 

seriously? someone call the whaaaaambulance. I was pretty clearly joking; that was just my way of saying that I felt that Slotboom's book has entirely changed online full-ring PLO, IMO for the worst. also, Buzz, this isnt exactly a "short-stack" article. The topic of maniacs, IMO, rather inherently deals with players who are dangerous due exactly to the fact that they have a lot of chips in front of them.

Re: Maniacs
 

[ QUOTE ]
They tend to vent this frustration by teasing the posters.

[/ QUOTE ]Hi Chucky – That’s what I thought too. A problem is teasing someone who is not a good friend can quickly get out of hand and is inappropriate behavior on this strategy and tactics forum.

[ QUOTE ]
One solution is that they could avoid posting on threads that they believe involve shortstack play or tactic questions.

[/ QUOTE ]Sorry, but I don’t like that suggestion. I like counter strategy proposals better than avoiding the issue.

Gordo suggested playing tight and 3-betting with “hands in the range of AA-QQxx and any run-down 4567.” That seems good, solid advice. I appreciate it.

I also greatly appreciate Elrazor’s excellent suggestion “buy in full and sit to his left, then 3 bet any hand you feel is ahead of his range” and “this way you can work on getting his entire stack rather than just 10-20% of it.”

I’d rather have those posters offering their advice than sitting out the discussion once it involves short stack strategy.

<font color="green">Anyone member is entitled to ask or give advice about short stacking or any other strategy or tactic.

And any member is entitled (actually encouraged) to offer a constructive opposing or alternate point of view.</font>

In this particular thread, Waffleticket asked for advice on how to cope with maniacs. There's nothing wrong with that.

ChuckyB responded with excellent advice in a well worded, very intelligent post. Indeed, ChuckyB's post was an outstanding response to Waffleticket.

Read it again if you don't believe me. It's right on the money. ChuckyB's post suggested a way to cope with the maniac strategy. In it he suggested Slotboom's short stack strategy and also Greenspan's loosen up and raise strategy.

<font color="green">Agree with it or not, nobody gets to ridicule ChuckyB's point of view.

And nobody gets to ridicule it and say they are or were only joking. Joking and making fun of somebody's point of view is exactly how to go about ridiculing it.</font>

[ QUOTE ]
I would point out that when one asks advice of others it is important to recognize when the question will offend those that are being asked.

[/ QUOTE ] Certainly someone could ask a question that would be offensive, but Waffleticket merely asked for advice on coping with maniacs. That seems entirely reasonable and innocuous to me. It’s something we all confront at one time or another.

[ QUOTE ]
Likewise, those posting in this forum about short-stacking should not be surprised to receive critical and sometimes unfortunately ill-worded responses.

[/ QUOTE ]<font color="green">Constructively critical responses are fine. Responses that insult or ridicule the poster at whom they are aimed are not fine.

Posting about short stack strategy has to be fine. Asking for advice about short stack strategy has to be fine.

Please, anyone, if you disagree with a point of view, simply offer an opposing or alternate point of view if you can come up with one. Please, anyone, do not ridicule or insult any poster or suggest banishment.</font>

[ QUOTE ]
Short-stacking to play a level than one is not rolled makes it harder not easier to learn how to play at the higher level because short stack hand selection and strategy is different that if one expects to play preflop, flop, and turn at least with hands.

[/ QUOTE ]Fine. That’s a constructively critical rebuttal. I like the part about learning to play the flop and turn – and I’d add river.

Buzz
<font color="green">stuff in green color is speaking as forum moderator

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Maniacs
 

[/ QUOTE ]

Rolf Slotboom's book has a big section on this. His advice is to buy in short, sit on the maniac's <u>right</u>, and play a strictly limp/re-raise style. And do your best to get it all in pre-flop when you have a better hand than the maniacs range (aces, kings, nice double-suited rundowns, suited broadways, etc.)

If you're going to buy in full, don't sit to his right. Find a seat a few spots downstream so you can take advantage and isolate him. Let him hang himself when he has good hands.

In "Ace on the River" Barry Greenstein says the common response to a maniac is to tighten up. Greenstein says the change you should make is to loosen up and re-raise more frequently.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honest question: As part of this strategy do you stand up as soon as you reach a certain threshold of BB?

Do you then quit or do you seek out another table and reload with a short stack?

It seems this advice would lead one to either quit as soon as he made a small profit or rat-hole if he wished to continue.

Re: Maniacs
 

SHAKENBAKE

Re: Maniacs
 

I love it. It rhymes, they're both verbs...

Re: Maniacs
 

[ QUOTE ]
Honest question: As part of this strategy do you stand up as soon as you reach a certain threshold of BB?

Do you then quit or do you seek out another table and reload with a short stack?

[/ QUOTE ]

When I started with this a couple of weeks ago, I would sit out when I ran my $20 (on .50/1.00) up to about $60. At the time I didn't feel comfortable in PLO with that much money on the table among bigger stacks. $60 was probably 25% of my online bankroll at the time (but a negligible portion of my total bankroll).

Now I'll usually keep going with a stack of $60-$70 even with three or four tables open. I have a handle on who I'm playing and I'm better equipped strategically to play that deep (though it's not really 'deep' at all).

When I'm uncomfortable with my stack, like a couple nights ago when I more-than-tripled up to $160+ on one table, I played until the blinds came around and I left. That's too much money, relative to my online roll (about 40%), to have on one table. And I know that I tend to lose focus after a big hand. So it's best that I don't risk a lot of money while in that mindset.

In those situations I'll keep playing on my other two tables, or find a new one to add.

Slotboom advises once you get to about 70 BBs there's no real short-stacking advantages left. So if you're going to stay, you should top-up to the max buy-in.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems this advice would lead one to either quit as soon as he made a small profit or rat-hole if he wished to continue.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Rat-hole" can be a pretty inflammatory phrase (if HSP and Freddy Deeb have taught us anything), but I know what you're saying.

Stars, for example, requires that you leave the table for at least 30 minutes to be allowed to buy-in for less.

In the time that I'm still at the table after making a big score, everyone has an equal shot at my stack. That's bitten me in the butt on a couple of occasions.

Slotboom's advice means you'd leave the table when you've made a significant profit, relative to your investment...100%, 200%, 700% something like that.


For me, short-stacking is about winning money, bankroll management and preparing for a future of making more money. And so far Slotboom's strategy, while not perfect for the games I've sat in, is effective. There are counters to it, but most people can't figure them out (because most don't care to, like we do here on 2+2).

The goal with Slotboom is to get your money in with the best of it and commit early in the hand so there are no tough decisions after the flop. It allows you to compete with more-skilled players and even the field.

Slotboom spends more than half the book talking about deep-stack strategy. I hope to be able to explore that more fully when the time is right. If I had $1500-$2000 online, I probably would. For now, it's just the times when I triple and quadruple up.

Re: Maniacs
 

Thanks for the response. I certainly didn't mean to impugn anyone's character and probably should have used a different phrase.

Another serious question, wouldn't you have more fun and learn more (you almost certainly know more than I do btw) by playing 25PLO instead? Or do did you decide you could learn more by playing against better players in a bigger game even on a short stack?

Re: Maniacs
 

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the response. I certainly didn't mean to impugn anyone's character and probably should have used a different phrase.

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally cool. No offence taken at all.

[ QUOTE ]
Another serious question, wouldn't you have more fun and learn more (you almost certainly know more than I do btw) by playing 25PLO instead? Or do did you decide you could learn more by playing against better players in a bigger game even on a short stack?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've played around with full-stack 25PLO and 50PLO in the past. Actually I've been hardcore into just about every game at some point (PLO/8, LHE, 2-7 TD, Pineapple, Stud, Razz) with varying degrees of success.

I had Slotboom's book on my shelf for some time. I started reading it book after playing in a live 1/2NL mixed game in Edmonton (which was almost exclusively Omaha). After that I put $200 back online and started with 50 &amp; 100 PLO. I had good success at 100 (with 10 short buy-ins) and I was able to weather a pretty nasty downswing at beginning of the month. And there are usually 3 full-ring games going on Stars in the night time. 100 just felt right. Big enough to be exciting and small enough to feel safe.

I have no qualms about moving down to 25PLO when I want to learn even more about post-flop action. As many people can relate, the smaller stakes feel kind of boring at times since my true poker bankroll is about $2000. Hopefully I'll have earned enough to play max buy-in 100 PLO (the full ring games above there are inconsistent on Stars). But I plan to worry about that at another time. Right now I'm in full PLO study mode.

Re: Maniacs
 

I have a question that I truly don't know the answer to...

What is the difference between someone who buys into the game for the minimum and someone who buys into an uncapped game for an excessive amount of money so that he can have the table covered? Both can take post-flop play completely out of the equation (though the threat level to a 100-200 BB stack is completely different?)

I hear of a lot of "die shortstackers die" at the higher online levels. And I don't really get it. Everyone's following the rules so what's the problem?

Re: Maniacs
 

WTF is with Cash lately.. I can't seem to get people to fold it is like a group freaking conspiracy to stay in every pot.... why do I bother to RAISE preflop? It is so weird it has just been the past week and I am losing at cash every day this week because it is a group free for all in these pots and I can't hit a flop to save my life. THANK god for tournies LOL!!!

Full Tilt Poker
Pot Limit Omaha Ring game
Blinds: $0.10/$0.25
9 players
Converter

Stack sizes:
UTG: $11.50
UTG+1: $14.55
MP1: $19.05
MP2: $1.65
MP3: $30.20
CO: $22.15
Button: $31.55
SB: $27.55
Janellebb7: $37.90

Pre-flop: (9 players) Janellebb7 is BB with 9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
UTG calls, UTG+1 folds, MP1 calls, MP2 folds, MP3 calls, CO calls, Button calls, SB folds, SB folds, <font color="#cc0000">Janellebb7 raises to $1.85</font>, UTG calls, MP1 calls, MP3 calls, CO calls, Button calls.

Flop: 2[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] ($11.2, 6 players)
Janellebb7 checks, UTG checks, MP1 checks, MP3 checks, CO checks, Button checks.

Turn: K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] ($11.2, 6 players)
Janellebb7 checks, UTG checks, <font color="#cc0000">MP1 bets $0.25</font>, MP3 folds, CO calls, Button calls, Janellebb7 calls, UTG folds.

River: 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] ($12.2, 4 players)
Janellebb7 checks, <font color="#cc0000">MP1 bets $5.25</font>, 2 folds, Janellebb7 folds.
Uncalled bets: $5.25 returned to MP1.

Results:
Final pot: $12.2

Re: Maniacs
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have a question that I truly don't know the answer to...

What is the difference between someone who buys into the game for the minimum and someone who buys into an uncapped game for an excessive amount of money so that he can have the table covered? Both can take post-flop play completely out of the equation (though the threat level to a 100-200 BB stack is completely different?)

I hear of a lot of "die shortstackers die" at the higher online levels. And I don't really get it. Everyone's following the rules so what's the problem?

[/ QUOTE ]
the problem is people don't like the rules.

Re: Maniacs
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have a question that I truly don't know the answer to...

What is the difference between someone who buys into the game for the minimum and someone who buys into an uncapped game for an excessive amount of money so that he can have the table covered? Both can take post-flop play completely out of the equation (though the threat level to a 100-200 BB stack is completely different?)

I hear of a lot of "die shortstackers die" at the higher online levels. And I don't really get it. Everyone's following the rules so what's the problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

People are allowed opinions, and the general consensus between the higher stakes regular players is that buying in short is not really playing, but rather pathetically grinding a living (my personal opinion, I dont speak for everyone) by pushing small percentage favorites pre-flop, thus eliminating post-flop play. It's not so much about rules as it is about a certain amount of respect.

Re: Maniacs
 

um in plo a massive stack can not eliminate the flop and later streets without help. It is pot-limit.

Re: Maniacs
 

[ QUOTE ]
um in plo a massive stack can not eliminate the flop and later streets without help. It is pot-limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

In pot-limit yes. I meant (but didn't write) no-limit. Sorry.

Re: Maniacs
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have a question that I truly don't know the answer to...

What is the difference between someone who buys into the game for the minimum and someone who buys into an uncapped game for an excessive amount of money so that he can have the table covered? Both can take post-flop play completely out of the equation (though the threat level to a 100-200 BB stack is completely different?)

I hear of a lot of "die shortstackers die" at the higher online levels. And I don't really get it. Everyone's following the rules so what's the problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

People are allowed opinions, and the general consensus between the higher stakes regular players is that buying in short is not really playing, but rather pathetically grinding a living (my personal opinion, I dont speak for everyone) by pushing small percentage favorites pre-flop, thus eliminating post-flop play. It's not so much about rules as it is about a certain amount of respect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Preflop play is a hell of a lot more interesting than you seem to think. It is certainly not a grind. In fact, like I said in another post, I think everyone should spend a certain amount of time shortstacking to get a good feel for preflop hand values, as it is rather important for later streets if you're playing preflop correctly. We (you) should remember that most shortstackers are awful and generally just want to gamble, and that they actually make postflop play much more interesting with the concepts of sidepots, dead money, protection and so forth, in which a skilled player such as yourself can generate unexpected edges over other good players.

Re: Maniacs
 

i dont mind the shortstackers in omaha, in general they are absolutely terrible drooling gamboolers that jsut donate straight out.

also if u have a donk goin allin with A3 in texas for 20bb u obv cant raise your 75s but in omaha u can raise and call reraises with good drawinghands like 6789ss and u can create coinflips against the shortstaks with a lot of deadmoney in the pot.

i think they can create some interesting situations with different stacksizes in omaha even if i prefer deepstackplay.


in holdem shortstackers are just a nuisance though an even if they generally donate they make the games boring.



maniacs in PLO normally suck and add fun and enormous value to the game.

Re: Maniacs
 

[ QUOTE ]
WTF is with Cash lately.. I can't seem to get people to fold it is like a group freaking conspiracy to stay in every pot.... why do I bother to RAISE preflop? It is so weird it has just been the past week and I am losing at cash every day this week because it is a group free for all in these pots and I can't hit a flop to save my life. THANK god for tournies LOL!!!

Full Tilt Poker
Pot Limit Omaha Ring game
Blinds: $0.10/$0.25
9 players
Converter

Stack sizes:
UTG: $11.50
UTG+1: $14.55
MP1: $19.05
MP2: $1.65
MP3: $30.20
CO: $22.15
Button: $31.55
SB: $27.55
Janellebb7: $37.90

Pre-flop: (9 players) Janellebb7 is BB with 9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
UTG calls, UTG+1 folds, MP1 calls, MP2 folds, MP3 calls, CO calls, Button calls, SB folds, SB folds, <font color="#cc0000">Janellebb7 raises to $1.85</font>, UTG calls, MP1 calls, MP3 calls, CO calls, Button calls.

Flop: 2[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] ($11.2, 6 players)
Janellebb7 checks, UTG checks, MP1 checks, MP3 checks, CO checks, Button checks.

Turn: K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] ($11.2, 6 players)
Janellebb7 checks, UTG checks, <font color="#cc0000">MP1 bets $0.25</font>, MP3 folds, CO calls, Button calls, Janellebb7 calls, UTG folds.

River: 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] ($12.2, 4 players)
Janellebb7 checks, <font color="#cc0000">MP1 bets $5.25</font>, 2 folds, Janellebb7 folds.
Uncalled bets: $5.25 returned to MP1.

Results:
Final pot: $12.2

[/ QUOTE ]

You should have sat with me friday night/saturday morning. Dropped 300 in 25PLO 6 max and 150 50PLO 6 max in about 3500 hands.

God, guess I'm going back to holdem.

Re: Maniacs
 

play higher and higher hands until you find thier limit and then keep above that. Or save up by folding and find a big hand to full blast raise all you have to line up and join them fire withn fire.

Re: Maniacs
 

the advantages of a short stake are formable but much less complex then deepness the cover stack is better only a super huge redoundent stack is a pain so short staking isn't the same game only a type of novaltiy. 200 BB are the correct level for the full attributes of poker the mins are in place only as a business (commercial) facet.

Re: Maniacs
 

I knew you meant NL; but you are concerned over nothing the bigger the stack the harder to play any large preflop bets you can't call because of lack of money you can learn to beat this player and then move on but never buyin for the min alway seek to play with a deeper stack like the 200bb.

Re: Maniacs
 

You should wait for a suited 9 or not play nines at all 10 9 draws with no one out can't win to much.

Re: Maniacs
 

If my life is for rent and I won't learn to die I deserve what I get because nothing is truly mine~parphrased~, NL is a game beyond such shop keeping I fly the "Jolly Rogers" to that and could make you fall from those economic measures the higher limits are all deep not because of rules but because they are beaten ways. but have fun but don't sail the seas were my priate ship playes among the sharks and riptides.

Re: Maniacs
 

[ QUOTE ]
I knew you meant NL; but you are concerned over nothing the bigger the stack the harder to play any large preflop bets you can't call because of lack of money you can learn to beat this player and then move on but never buyin for the min alway seek to play with a deeper stack like the 200bb.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my life I've learned that advice that contains the word "always" is questionable.

My point with the huge buy-in is that it can also take post-flop play out of the game. Yet buying in disproportionately deep is seen as okay. That strikes me as strange.