How to counter the idiot at the table?

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
My suggestion was that you gear down after you didn't hit a set on the flop. If you are taking PP's into 4 and 5 way pots, more often than not you are going to need to improve to a set or better to win. Laying down TT is not the end of the world in a multi-way pot. Your beloved table idiot is going to inflate enough pots that you can win a large pot later on when you have a far more distinct advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, you missed my point. I was basically in a HU-pot, because the maniac cannot be counted for full. I didn't hit a set, but I had an overpair on a guy (the eventual winner) who was obviously calling with trash and sticking in with "just" top pair. What shall I do with A-A in that spot if I miss the set? Besides that, I shut down my aggression once the king fell. The question was only if to call 2 bets on the river or not.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry for the way this is coming off and this is a serious question, but this is 1/2 limit. Who cares?

[/ QUOTE ]

The stakes don't matter. All what matters is playing correctly. The hand doesn't become more or less interesting if it was played for $100/200.

[jimpo]

Grunch:

You stated that

[ QUOTE ]
everyone gets the odds to stick around and draw against you.

[/ QUOTE ]

In your example, though, the effect of the idiot was the opposite - SB had to call 2 bets on the flop with incorrect odds [9.5:1]. If the idiot had not been in the hand, SB would have had much better odds to call your single raise on the flop.

This type of idiot is a useful opponent, use him as a tool (no pun intended) for knocking other players out of pots, protecting your vulnerable hands. Very nice if you get a seat on his left (as in your example).

[gergery]

If you're that concerned about variance, don't raise with TT preflop. in fact, in lower limit multiway pots i seem to recall sklanksy recommending calling preflop with midpairs in certain circumtances. yes, you have an equity edge preflop that you are giving up, but they are hard to play postflop since most of time u have no set and overcards.

personally, i would never leave a table like that since its pretty ev+. i'd also have folded on the river since calling fish very rarely raise on river with middle pair and others to act.

you also may have unrealistic expectations bout how often you will win

-g

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
you also may have unrealistic expectations bout how often you will win

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the big point. If you make a profitable crying call getting 9:1 but expecting you're good 15% of the time, you should still expect to lose 85% of the time. It may be frustrating, but it doesn't mean the game's no good or that you're playing wrong.

[Shandrax]

I finally found the essay from Mason that I was looking for. I knew there was something, but I couldn't remember where. Here it is: Poker Essays I p.142ff.

I am glad that Mason confirms my observation that the maniac is not the ideal opponent.

[AKQJ10]

(Response deleted under the assumption that you thought better of your earlier post, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.)

[Shandrax]

I edited out the sarcasm. It was inappropriate.

[_TKO_]

Simply stated, it's more important to recognize how the other 8 players at the table are reacting to the "idiot".

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you also may have unrealistic expectations bout how often you will win

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the big point. If you make a profitable crying call getting 9:1 but expecting you're good 15% of the time, you should still expect to lose 85% of the time. It may be frustrating, but it doesn't mean the game's no good or that you're playing wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

That too, but i was referring to his equity on the flop. vs. 3 opponents they likely had 5, 5, and 6-8 outs respectively on the flop meaning his equiity was likely 32-40% or so, so you likely have the highest individual equity but collectively you are a signficant dog to your opponents as a group.

i'm basically saying vs. a field of 3 here on any given hand you should actually be "expecting" to lose, if that makes sense.

-g

[Shandrax]

Thanks to Pokerstove, the equities were:

Board: 2c 9h 8c
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 62.9191 % 62.96% 00.00% { TcTs }
Hand 2: 18.6033 % 18.61% 00.00% { Kd9s }
Hand 3: 18.4776 % 18.49% 00.00% { 6s2s }

The equity on the flop against random two hands is almost identical. On the turn, even with the king on board, T-T is still 55% favorite against 2 random hands*, but a 95% dog if someone made a pair of kings.

* this is too simplified of course, because random hands don't go that far, but everything over 33% should be enough in the long run.