How to counter the idiot at the table?

[Shandrax]

Lately I have run into a weird type of player. He will play complete trash and raise on every street. The worst thing that could happen (and it happend to me quite often) is to get caught inbetween this guy and someone with a more or less legitimate hand.

Since every pot gets blown up, it's almost impossible to play a hand like top pair for example. Once the pot contains a ton of bets, everyone gets the odds to stick around and draw against you.

Just a small reminder, if two players sandwhich a guy intentionally and blow the pot out of proportion, it's collusion.

Now with that complete retard on the table, the outcome is basically the same, just some sort of unintentional collusion.

I have no idea how to counter that and I certainly have the feeling that this type of player hurts me more than I could profit from him, so I usually leave such tables.

Any better ideas?


Edit: Here is an example:
Party Poker ($1/$2 limit). Hand converted by Check Raised hand converter

Preflop (9 players): Hero is MP2 with
UTG calls [2.5:1].
1 fold.
MP1 calls [3.5:1].
HERO 2 bets.
3 folds.
SB calls [4.67:1].
BB calls [8:1].
UTG calls [9:1].
MP1 calls [10:1].

Flop (10 small bets ($10) in pot, 5 players):

SB bets.
BB folds [11:1].
UTG calls [12:1].
MP1 2 bets.
HERO 3 bets.
SB calls [9.5:1].
UTG calls [10.5:1].
MP1 calls [22:1].

Turn (11 bets ($22) in pot, 4 players):

SB bets.
UTG calls [13:1].
MP1 calls [14:1].
HERO calls [15:1].

River (15 bets ($30) in pot, 4 players):

SB bets.
UTG folds [16:1].
MP1 2 bets.
HERO calls [10:1].
SB calls [21:1].

Summary:


MP1 has a pair of Deuces [ ]

SB has Two pair, Kings and Nines [ ] and won $41.00 (20.5bb)

<u>HERO has a pair of Tens [ ]</u>

[Hass]

Sit as close as you can to his left and try to isolate him by re-raising his raises. This will help your top pair hands hold up more often.

Also, remember that against this type of player makes small pairs go up in value and suited connectors go down in value.

[slcseas]

You should NEVER, EVER leave a game with this type of player IMO. You are costing yourself alot of money if you do.

Look at it this way.. say the pots are inflating to 4x the size they would typically be at this level. That simply means you need to win 1/4th as often as you typically do to maintain approximately the same earn.

I know how tempting it is to want to get into as many hands as possible with the moron because you know you can outplay him. The better option is rock solid hand selection and fast play pre-flop. Raise and Re-raise, get as much money as possible in when you know you have the best hand with a big PP.

In games like this you need to be weary of your position. Play more hands when you have the CO or button, and less in EP and MP. You can call a pre-flop raise with a wide range on the button, because if you hit the flop hard you have massive implied odds against multiple opponents plus a wealth of information to use to make your decisions.

Don't try to get fancy on the flop. TP &amp; TPTK are marginal against mulitple opponents. You either want a big draw (ie nut flush + overcards, OE straight + flush), a set , or two pair to go past the flop. Remember the old saying, don't get involved in a big pot without a big hand.

[AKQJ10]

Caveat: I've converted to NL now so my LHE is rusty.

Just because there's one LAG at the table, you have to consider input from the other presumably solid players. In the hand you posted, the flop play was fine but on the turn you should probably realize you're beaten. (EDIT: I'm not sure you can fold the turn for one bet if SB would be likely to semibluff a flush draw + pair, and then the river is a tough fold even for two bets getting 10:1. Crying calls may be OK here, but realize that you only have to win once in ten tries to make them profitable. Hell, on the turn you're almost getting odds to spike a ten!) Even given that competent player #2 is in the hand, that player knows you're in the hand and isn't going to push something marginal against resistance. His turn bet unmistakably represents at least a king, and by calling down you're expressing willingness to pay at least two bets to find out if he's bluffing.

If you must infer a general rule (as opposed to just taking this for what it is, a good starting hand that turned into a mediocre hand that you held on to for too long), everything others have said is valid. Keep playing big hands that can flop bigger. No need to tighten up too much (although the point about paying to chase draws with SCs is valid) and you can bet/raise your marginal hands against maniac, but when Thinking Player claims to have a hand you should believe him.

[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.

[Webster]

[ QUOTE ]
You should NEVER, EVER leave a game with this type of player IMO. You are costing yourself alot of money if you do.


[/ QUOTE ]

That is just silly talk.

the problem is not THAT player bu the rest of the table. you can not isolate the maniac IF everybody ELSE is playing into him. All they are doing is increasing HIS odds.

Personally - if I can not isolate hit without the entire table joining in - I'll leave. not worth the hassel.

What happens NORMALLY is the IQ of the table will drop and all of a sudden good players will start bluffing the bluffer and losing to him. Then all of a sudden the nice table where you have everybody read becaomes a random mess.

If you don't like the conditions - leave. NEVER feel you HAVE to play with a maniac.