Crazy Player Isolated By Good Player. What is Your 4-Bet Range?

[Nick C]

[ QUOTE ]
I would feel pretty comfortable calling down 66 then against the maniac who is guaranteed to bet the next 2 streets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, obviously you're doing this, if you get the chance. I'm thinking that getting HU in 4-way capped pots, in particular, will not always be so easy though. And this becomes more true if the players between you and the maniac sometimes continue their isolation attempts postflop.

[jba]

you need showdownable hands which imo is why A9 > JTs

[Nick C]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would cap roughly the same range that I would 3-bet against the good player who is iso-raising the maniac.

So 66, A9s, ATo, KJs, KQo

Maybe this is too tight.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt it's too tight, especially as a capping range.

Postflop is going to be miserable when we miss, by the way. Playing that 66 isn't going to be much fun either, on most flops.

[/ QUOTE ]


We really have to agree on what range we put the iso raiser.

The maniac is raising any2. So the 3-bettor should have a pretty wide range range. At least top 20% IMO. With that range skewed towards showdownable hands and away from say T9s.

66 and AT does pretty well against that range remembering its 3-way.

So it takes forever to run the stove when its 3-way and there is a "random" range. But ATo and 66 both have around 36-40% eq against the maniacs random hand and the 3-bettors 44, A4s, K7s, QTs, JTs, A6o, KTo.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really know how much we will or won't make with 66. I think it depends in part on how the table is playing postflop (and, while we know the maniac is nearly always betting or raising, we don't know if the other players are continuing to attempt to isolate). I do suspect the 66 is going to work considerably better in 3-way pots than it will in the ones where we're capping with it.

In any case, I don't have a precise range to recommend, and as much as anything I was echoing Absolution's "welcome to variance town."

[Nick C]

By the way, given that this is a table where isolation of the maniac is not being tolerated, I'm thinking our relative position at the table might actually be pretty good.

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
you need showdownable hands which imo is why A9 > JTs

[/ QUOTE ]

There is some truth to that, but JTs is pretty easy to get away from if you miss, whereas A9 can get expensive in this spot.

[Heisenb3rg]

It depends on how light the 3-bettor is :P Against myself...

KQs, AJo+, ATs, 99+ is very likely profitable.
I suspect A9s and KJs (maybe KQo) is also.

I disagree strongly with 66, because your build a ginormous pot in a 3 way sitaution where youll have little idea where you stand.
If the 3-bettor truly is good, he should be using the maniac as leverage to knock you out of pots.

77 I think is also a fold for this reason.

I'd much rather have KJs than 77, because you can be a lot more comfortlbe with your hand when you hit the flop.. You can also withstand some pressure when you hit draws. You also have great fold equity against the strong player, so you can fold out hands like 99 on certain flops.

You may also want to cap lighter than this for meta game purposes. If you show down a hand like JTs, or get a streak of hands worthy of 4 betting it may tighten up the 3-bettors, allowing you to isolate the bad player.

[Tony_Sopran0]

lol