Strategies vs a Splashy Maniac

CriminalBizzyCriminalBizzy Las VegasRed Chipper Posts: 96 ✭✭
This hand comes from a recent session where I had started to adjust to a splashy maniac by allowing him to take the lead on most of the betting and betting when he checked. I was finding that he would often bet or call depending on whether he had position.

The particular hand in question happened when I was in the SB with about $1000 sitting in front of me. The BB had about $600 and villain who is the splashy maniac who was UTG+1 had about $400. I was playing $1/$3 and we were 9 handed.

The UTG+1 had limped in and it folded to me. I looked down at :8D::8S: and thought about raising but BB to my left had been adjusting to villain as well and seemed to be getting involved in many hands. I did not want to bloat the pot so I just completed with the plan to call any raise from BB since I was pretty confident that villain would not 3-bet. BB raised to $11 and both villain and I called.

The flop came :4S::8C::4C:

I thought about leading out but knew this would almost guarantee a call from the BB since she raised preflop, which meant she had some sort of hand that would most likely continue to be with a high frequency. I checked. BB led out with a bet of $30 and villain called. I raised to $100 and both BB and villain folded.

BB started to needle me and asked me why did I raise. She said that I should be letting the splashy maniac do all the betting. I don't disagree but I also think that I should be raising some of the time. The reason I should be raising is to protect from other pocket pairs that might have been in the hand and charge them to continue but then I question if this folds them out to often. BB admitted that she had pocket Jacks. Unfortunately I don't have a solver that I can explore for multi-way pots, but I suspect that it will tell me that I should be check raising some of the time. Is there a better strategy over the other or is this one of those spots that a mix strategy is split between the two option most of the time?

Comments

  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Las VegasPosts: 4,960 -
    I think there are two important points here. The first is the splashy frootloop has absolute position. This means they're likely to fire at perceived weakness at any point in the hand. The second is that BB sounds somewhat competent, and as such you're unlikely going to get stacks in with them, particularly since you two are somewhat deep. So I think you're mostly looking for a line that maximizes against frootloop.

    As such, I'd be expecting that a lot of the time the turn action will go check-check-bet, at which point you can think about raising. On a good day, BB will lead turn.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • LoveFishLoveFish IllinoisRed Chipper Posts: 154 ✭✭
    Raising flop is bad. Why do you need to protect your hand?? You just flopped a boat. Maniacs make their bread from being checked to and making those large “scary” bets. You are also giving the BB and the Maniac an easy fold here.
    Best play in my opinion when playing vs Maniac. Is to check call your big hands and raise your big draws.
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Las VegasPosts: 4,960 -
    edited July 6
    LoveFish wrote: »
    Raising flop is bad. Why do you need to protect your hand?? You just flopped a boat. Maniacs make their bread from being checked to and making those large “scary” bets. You are also giving the BB and the Maniac an easy fold here.
    Best play in my opinion when playing vs Maniac. Is to check call your big hands and raise your big draws.

    Agreed, against 99-AA we're not protecting, we're suffering from anticipated MUTBS.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • ulysses27ulysses27 Red Chipper Posts: 203 ✭✭
    You mention protecting your range but that's exactly what your doing by check calling. This protects your checking range. You will have a raising range here like 76c or A5c and some value like 99,1010 and 34s. Protecting against 99+ hitting their 2 outs is not something I would be worried about.
  • CriminalBizzyCriminalBizzy Las VegasRed Chipper Posts: 96 ✭✭
    TheGameKat wrote: »
    LoveFish wrote: »
    Raising flop is bad. Why do you need to protect your hand?? You just flopped a boat. Maniacs make their bread from being checked to and making those large “scary” bets. You are also giving the BB and the Maniac an easy fold here.
    Best play in my opinion when playing vs Maniac. Is to check call your big hands and raise your big draws.

    Agreed, against 99-AA we're not protecting, we're suffering from anticipated MUTBS.

    Maybe protection is not the word I want to use. Let me elaborate more on what I meant.

    I know that if BB checks and our friendly table splashy maniac bets, I am not so concerned about what they hold.

    If BB bets, which is what happened, I know that she is leading out towards the top of her range. She has a lot of pocket pairs, some Ax combos and very little broad way combos. From what I have observed, she does not c-bet very often. I also think its compounded by the fact that I did not raise preflop. Basically my thought is that when she bets, I know my hand is more vulnerable because she has more higher pocket pairs in her range that want to bet.
  • CriminalBizzyCriminalBizzy Las VegasRed Chipper Posts: 96 ✭✭
    LoveFish wrote: »
    Raising flop is bad. Why do you need to protect your hand?? You just flopped a boat. Maniacs make their bread from being checked to and making those large “scary” bets. You are also giving the BB and the Maniac an easy fold here.
    Best play in my opinion when playing vs Maniac. Is to check call your big hands and raise your big draws.

    I don't disagree with you. I think what had me over thinking the hand is that I am multi-way in the hand. Had it just been myself and the maniac then its check call flop and turn and bet the river. If it was just BB an myself we probably would have chopped lol.

    I think this dynamic changes a little when there are multiple players in the hand. If BB really had pocket jacks like she claimed to have then I wonder what she doesn't fold.

    The hand got me thinking if there is merit to one strategy over the other and while I don't think either strategy is wrong, in my mind I think you would want to build the pot because you are not completely invulnerable.
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Las VegasPosts: 4,960 -
    I'm just never worrying about 2 outs. I think the big issue here is when you check-raise they just assume you have a random 4 that you completed, then decided after the preflop raise and call you were getting the price to continue. If JJ really folded there you probably aren't bluffing enough.
    Moderation In Moderation
  • KossKoss Red Chipper Posts: 82 ✭✭
    The biggest mistake you can make against overly aggressive players is to start shoveling money into the pot as soon as you hit something. I see the same mistake play out in live games all the time. People get bullied by a maniac all night, finally hit something, throw in a big raise, the maniac snap folds, and they flip the nuts as if they've just accomplished something. Meanwhile they are still down $100 from all the times they've check/folded the flop. Given the dynamic you have described here I'm checking flop, turn and river, only leading one of those streets if the previous street checks through.

    Your comment about using a solver and mixed strategy is a bit off base as well. These are the types of players we deviate from solver play to maximize EV against. If someone bets far too often but responds appropriately when bet into, then we should be checking all of our strong value hands to them.
  • CriminalBizzyCriminalBizzy Las VegasRed Chipper Posts: 96 ✭✭
    TheGameKat wrote: »
    I'm just never worrying about 2 outs. I think the big issue here is when you check-raise they just assume you have a random 4 that you completed, then decided after the preflop raise and call you were getting the price to continue. If JJ really folded there you probably aren't bluffing enough.

    That is an interesting point. I feel like I make a lot of C-bets and float pretty often so I am not really sure if BB is that tight or just gave me that much credit. I don't get to showdown very often with out the nuts, so maybe that is what is fresh in her mind?
  • CriminalBizzyCriminalBizzy Las VegasRed Chipper Posts: 96 ✭✭
    @Koss that is unfortunate that you see that. When villain sat down at the table he made it known that he was an aggressive splashy player and I promptly stacked him on his second hand. Then I continued to take money from him.

    My comment about the solver is not to follow the solver verbatim but more as a thought about what lines could be explored. I know from my own head up solver work that there is a lot of aggression when you have the nuts so that is where my comment comes from.

    As for the hand, if the action were to go xbc on the flop, then xx on the turn, are you going for a big bet, possibly over bet on the river or do you think you would prefer to bet smaller to possibly induce a bluff?
  • KossKoss Red Chipper Posts: 82 ✭✭
    In that scenario what sizing I'm going to go for on the river largely depends on what the runout is. I'll admit knowing what bet sizes to use and when, particularly on the river, is probably the weakest part of my game. I'd probably go bigger on a runout that completes a lot of draws on the hope that he caught something like a straight or flush and pays me off, and smaller on a dry runout. I'm not a huge fan of going small to try and induce a bluff just because players never seem to take that bait nearly often enough to make it more profitable than going with a larger size trying to get called.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file