Razz: up against a tilting maniac, where do I fold?

[Andy B]

Third and fourth were both capped.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
A wait-and-see approach might be a better line, but I certainly don't think that jamming was awful.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the villain is a maniac, its better to wait and see, then jam on 5th when we know the hero is in good shape. Its a coin toss.... and a very common error that I see every day in the razz games online. This is one game where I dont want to be in the middle of too many coin tosses because as a good player I am more apt to find a fold if we catch bad than the opponent, which gives him or her a small edge even though he is maniac. Remove the small edges we offer the opponent by re-raising, don't inflate the pot artificially when its not necessary.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
I think slowing down on 4th is probably best. You caught bad while he improved slightly. From the action on third street you know he is not folding. I think that you have to let it go on 5th, as you need to catch good twice to have any kind of a hand at all. You are 62-37 dog if he holds as poor as 8 9 in the hole with 2 wheel cards that did not pair you are 70-30. I think that it would be best to pack it in and wait for a better spot.

*TT* Is my reasoning too weak tight here, or am I correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your reasoning is the same as mine this time.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[adanthar]

TT,

You don't pass up well over 60/40 edges in any game, even razz. You lose over an SB by just calling fourth, not something you can make up no matter what hits on fifth, especially if the 'maniac' decides to slow down at any point. But, OK, the concept is far more valid in razz than anywhere else, maybe I'm not eyeballing it right and we have a really thin call rather than a raise...folding fifth for 1 bet in a 9 BB pot when you know exactly how good you will be on sixth is *seriously* lighting money on fire.

(unless you mean in your hypo again, in which case please specify that, because *as played* folding fifth is nuts.)

edit: it doesn't even matter if you just call fourth - you're still getting 6:1 to call fifth. This isn't passing up small edges, it's just bad poker.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
TT,

You don't pass up well over 60/40 edges in any game, even razz. You lose over an SB by just calling fourth, not something you can make up no matter what hits on fifth, especially if the 'maniac' decides to slow down at any point. But, OK, the concept is far more valid in razz than anywhere else, maybe I'm not eyeballing it right and we have a really thin call rather than a raise...folding fifth for 1 bet in a 9 BB pot when you know exactly how good you will be on sixth is *seriously* lighting money on fire.

(unless you mean in your hypo again, in which case please specify that, because *as played* folding fifth is nuts.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said fold 5th as played? Not I (woops - reading his post back I noticed he wasn't talking about the hypothetical - which is what my response was based on). As played the pot is too big. His reasoning is correct about 4th street, and if played slower on 4th a fold can be considered on 5th before the pot is bloated. As played I cant find a fold - yet.

By the way I just noticed that feature to add variable cards within a range - very cool! But the problem with your 8-8-KT analysis is that its possible there is a pair in the hole which is included in the results - such as (AA)KT - there is not a modifier to avoid duplication. I think this is a slightly more realistic simulation, although we still have the problem of including duplicate cards which sways the sim slightly in the favor of the hero a bit too much every time.

[adanthar]

TT,

Phrasing it that way is really misleading. Please don't do that; I'll be watching out for it from you now, but there's nothing to indicate the disclaimer to the unwary.

Anyway, I don't know if you saw my edit but you still can't fold fifth getting 6:1, either.

[bachfan]

[ QUOTE ]
TT,

You don't pass up well over 60/40 edges in any game, even razz.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYI the simulation link above puts no constraints on the pairing/non-pairing of the downcards for the villain. here's the simulation with the constraint that none of maniac's cards are paired . Only couple percentage points different. (Use parens to make cards mutually exclusive - sorry for the lame ui).

Cheers,
bachfan <--- suffering from ocd today?

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
TT,

You don't pass up well over 60/40 edges in any game, even razz.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYI the simulation link above puts no constraints on the pairing/non-pairing of the downcards for the villain. here's the simulation with the constraint that none of maniac's cards are paired . Only couple percentage points different. (Use parens to make cards mutually exclusive - sorry for the lame ui).

Cheers,
bachfan <--- suffering from ocd today?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good catch. I still think this is the closest representation to a hand range we shpu;d be offering the villin, unless he has been capping each and every hand on 3rd. Until we now otherwise even though he is maniac we have to assume the villain has at least two good cards and has a tiny bit of a clue, therefore I think an A and another card 4 and lower is a fair representation (I'd accept (2-5-) as a fair and reasonable option).

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
TT,

Phrasing it that way is really misleading. Please don't do that; I'll be watching out for it from you now, but there's nothing to indicate the disclaimer to the unwary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. I am far from perfect, I often make quick posts because I am working or pressed for time, mistakes occur more than I wish them to. Luckily 95% of the time my concept comes through.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]