|
|
#21
11-11-2006, 03:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Stars $150. TPWK vs. a maniac
[ QUOTE ]
fold. it'd be a gross spot vs just the pfr, but sandwiched between him and what seem's to be a fairly tight bb is really bad. especially if bb can c/push a nakedish K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] here. if he's able to do that, it's an easy fold. without that knowledge, it's a fold, but a bit closer. raising here is obv horrible though. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, and there's a significant flaw in this logic below: [ QUOTE ] Looking back, my reasons for raising the flop were first that I wanted more info on BB. If I raise and he 3-bets, I know I'm beat, and can easily fold. He is never, and I mean never 3-betting here with something that does not beat top pair weak kicker. If I flat call UTG and he comes along, I have no idea where he's at. (or UTG for that matter) So I'm in the middle of a maniac and a nit, both have shown interest, I have no idea where either of them are in the hand and my hand itself is extremely venerable. I did not want that scenario. [/ QUOTE ] Because if you raise anything less than AI, and he flatcalls, he can have you crushed, as he's going to 3-bet his draws too and let you commit yourself to a turn mistake when he's WA. These relative stacks are far from being deep enough to raise flop, and even with deeper stacks, you should be check-calling, leadblocking on either turn or river, or checkcalling both streets. Sure, you're trying to exploit a Villain that's high-variance and easier to exploit. The trouble with a smallish flop raise is the rope you give him to hang yourself hangs yourself too. Now once here on turn, shove or c/f. Some maniacs are very good at getting value out of fundamentally tighter, aggressive players, even against other LAGs. The difference comes down to postflop advantage. 
|
|
#22
11-11-2006, 03:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Stars $150. TPWK vs. a maniac
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] fold. it'd be a gross spot vs just the pfr, but sandwiched between him and what seem's to be a fairly tight bb is really bad. especially if bb can c/push a nakedish K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] here. if he's able to do that, it's an easy fold. without that knowledge, it's a fold, but a bit closer. raising here is obv horrible though. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, and there's a significant flaw in this logic below: [ QUOTE ] Looking back, my reasons for raising the flop were first that I wanted more info on BB. If I raise and he 3-bets, I know I'm beat, and can easily fold. He is never, and I mean never 3-betting here with something that does not beat top pair weak kicker. If I flat call UTG and he comes along, I have no idea where he's at. (or UTG for that matter) So I'm in the middle of a maniac and a nit, both have shown interest, I have no idea where either of them are in the hand and my hand itself is extremely venerable. I did not want that scenario. [/ QUOTE ] Because if you raise anything less than AI, and he flatcalls, he can have you crushed, as he's going to 3-bet his draws too and let you commit yourself to a turn mistake when he's WA. These relative stacks are far from being deep enough to raise flop, and even with deeper stacks, you should be check-calling, leadblocking on either turn or river, or checkcalling both streets. Sure, you're trying to exploit a Villain that's high-variance and easier to exploit. The trouble with a smallish flop raise is the rope you give him to hang yourself hangs yourself too. Now once here on turn, shove or c/f. Some maniacs are very good at getting value out of fundamentally tighter, aggressive players, even against other LAGs. The difference comes down to postflop advantage. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah. I'm not saying my play was the right one, as it probably was not. I'm just trying to give a defence to what I was thinking at the time, be it wrong or not. My instincts put him on a worse hand that would call a raise but not a push. (J, middle pair) I agree, given the shallow stacks a raise less than AI is going to get you into more problems then you need. Although folding seems weak, calling seems terrible, and pushing feels like an overbet and im shrinking UTG's range down where he rarley calls me with a worse hand. It's a tough spot and I dont really like any of the options personally.
|
|
#23
11-11-2006, 03:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Stars $150. TPWK vs. a maniac
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah. I'm not saying my play was the right one, as it probably was not. I'm just trying to give a defence to what I was thinking at the time, be it wrong or not. [/ QUOTE ] As long as you don't mind when it's torn to shreds, naw worries. Well, on flop, you probably want him to fold rather than call, so that's the argument for shoving, and it's a decent addition to your stack. Otherwise if it doesn't feel right, c/f.
|
|
#24
11-11-2006, 04:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Stars $150. TPWK vs. a maniac
i'm not going to bother reading all that's in this thread (sorry, my posts earlier were obv done without reading), but you do understand why a flop c/r is the absolute worst possible thing, right?
|
|
#25
11-11-2006, 04:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Stars $150. TPWK vs. a maniac
[ QUOTE ]
i'm not going to bother reading all that's in this thread (sorry, my posts earlier were obv done without reading), but you do understand why a flop c/r is the absolute worst possible thing, right? [/ QUOTE ] Pretty much, yeah. Only called when you're beat or slightly behind to combos. [ QUOTE ] One possible reraise line I would take against a maniac, would be to reraise to isolate, which isn't necessary with a tight BB... Fatten the pot, RR to 600, slight over-PSB shove out of the blind in the dark on flop. Rock the maniac back on his heels, force him into a uncomfortable decision by using his own strategy against him. Slightly more FE than a ram and jam PF knowing Q9s has a slight edge against his range, the RR allows you to signal more strength than you actually have, and he'll assume you played a pretty strong holding fast. [/ QUOTE ] OP read on Villain was crazy maniac. Something I do have plenty of practice with, both being and countering. So I offered a bigger PF RR and basically meet aggression with superaggression line, perhaps with better PF FE rather than postflop FE, and I did qualify later in that post, saying it's a huge spew a lot of the time.
|
|
#26
11-11-2006, 05:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Stars $150. TPWK vs. a maniac
This whole thread is a joke, right?
|
|
#27
11-11-2006, 05:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Stars $150. TPWK vs. a maniac
[ QUOTE ]
This whole thread is a joke, right? [/ QUOTE ] dude, stop. i'm trying my hardest to be adult to this guy. FM, no, that's not why. it's because it allows him to push his A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] and leaves you unable to call.
|
|
#28
11-11-2006, 05:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Stars $150. TPWK vs. a maniac
[ QUOTE ]
Cool. It's nice to articulate those concepts in a thread that isn't bogged down by inanities and egos [/ QUOTE ] You jinxed it, FM. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
|
|
#29
11-11-2006, 05:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Stars $150. TPWK vs. a maniac
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Cool. It's nice to articulate those concepts in a thread that isn't bogged down by inanities and egos [/ QUOTE ] You jinxed it, FM. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Apparently. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
|
|
#30
11-11-2006, 05:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Stars $150. TPWK vs. a maniac
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] This whole thread is a joke, right? [/ QUOTE ] dude, stop. i'm trying my hardest to be adult to this guy. FM, no, that's not why. it's because it allows him to push his A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] and leaves you unable to call. [/ QUOTE ] k, thanks.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
