How to counter the idiot at the table?

[Shandrax]

I did realize on the turn that I was probably beaten, but look at my odds. I got 15:1 for my money and I couldn't expect the maniac to blow up the river like that. I knew exactly that my chances weren't great, but the pot odds somewhat tied me to the pot. That's exactly the problem I got with that type of player. Usually I keep pots small with just one pair and I can even make a laydown, but NOT when I get that sort of odds to continue. Looking at the final pot, I even had the implied odds to spike a third ten in which case I would have re-raised of course.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
I couldn't expect the maniac to blow up the river like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I somewhat disagree, although raising bottom pair would be a surprise coming from anyone. Given your read on this player there's a better-than-usual chance that it will cost you more than two bets for a showdown. But you're correct that you're getting great odds, and the turn call is hard to find fault with.

My transition to NL has greatly colored my thinking, which is why I went back and edited this response. You probably played it fine, but at least 80% of the time you should expect to lose. The times you win, you'll be compensated well.

[ QUOTE ]
That's exactly the problem I got with that type of player. Usually I keep pots small with just one pair and I can even make a laydown, but NOT when I get that sort of odds to continue.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why I don't think trying to extrapolate a "theory of playing against the idiot at the table" from this one hand is a very good idea. You had a good hand that got outdrawn by a five-outer, that's all.

[ QUOTE ]
Looking at the final pot, I even had the implied odds to spike a third ten in which case I would have re-raised of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. Then you could say, "Look, this is how you play against an idiot." The big pots you win will more than compensate you, especially if he's not smarter than he looks (i.e. smart enough to get out when you represent something huge).

I usually AM the idiot at the table.

[Shandrax]

The main question in that last hand is why I paid off the river. Even 10:1 may not be good enough to justify it with the king on board.

My thought process in this hand was affected by my knowledge that the fool plays everything. So instead of the usual 3-player pot I thought I was in something like a 2.5-player pot. All I was concerned with was if I could beat the SB. He bet on the flop and I got an overpair. That encouraged me to go on with the hand, so I didn't fear the king much. Sure the fool could have hit with his possible A-K, but I didn't give him credit for that (he could be playing 7-2 just as well). Overall I was much more worried about the SB hitting a set. With that sort of odds and the pot "almost" being heads-up, I thought it was worth a call. Still, this is probably very debatable.

The other point to think about is the limit I am playing. With a raising-bot on the table, I am basically forced to play for higher stakes. Every pot will be much more expensive than average. Remember I played 1/2, but the final pot contained $41 which is more common for 2/4. Adding the variance of the fool having either the nuts or complete trash, that's something I don't feel comfortable with.

I simply don't want to play for double stakes with that sort of random factor in the game.

[montauk]

You want to always play at this table, when you have the best hand you are always going to get paid off. Don't try to steal , and be patient. The more times you fold marginal hands the more confident he gets. Then the 3rd or 4th time instead of folding you call with the nuts, and take his stack.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
I simply don't want to play for double stakes with that sort of random factor in the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a theoretically sound assessment. A wild player will increase variance and make a $1/2 game play more like $2/4.

But the other replies are accurate, too. The EV of playing against this fellow is pretty high. Ideally you'd like to play against his cousin at 50c/$1, allowing you to reduce variance to what you're comfortable with and still reap the rewards of your opponent's bad play.

Leaving the game because it's "too good to beat" is not a sound decision, but leaving the game because of the variance suffered in beating it could be a sound decision.

Also -- to the original question about adjustments -- upon reflection I think the comparison of NLHE and LHE has some relevance here. Although obviously still a limit game, this game would play slightly more like NLHE. You call getting 15:1 but not really sure you can ever see a showdown that cheaply. In that sense, you want to play more hands that benefit from implied odds and fewer hands that lay reverse implied odds (RIO). We agree that your turn call is fine, but for very different reasons than in a standard limit game. You're really playing for set value there, and if your 22:1 shot comes in and you get the two pair and the maniac going at it, you could make eight more big bets on the river! Meanwhile, bread and butter top pair hands are laying RIO -- that doesn't mean you fold every top pair, but it does mean you have to consider whether it's worthwhile to play on.

SSHE has a great example where A9 makes top pair of nines, but facing a bet it's not worth it to play on because of RIO. You'll either win a little or lose a lot. This game with the maniac strikes me as similar.