|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 12/1/2008 4:36:57 PM PACIFIC |
 Roy's "maniac" article, Aisthesis, 30. Nov 2003 11:41 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Well, with all my recent interest in dealing with maniacs/tiltos, Roy's cardplayer article on this topic was most interesting to me. To me, the article confirms the multi-dimensionality/complexity of the problem and hence the importance of being able to adjust quickly and appropriately to the situation. His paradigmatic case was at a limit table but I really think almost everything there applies pretty much equally in NL. Here was my take on some of the important results, along with a few things that are still a little unclear to me: 1) The other players are going to be focussed on maniac, hence much less energetic in play on hands where the maniac is out, hence more pot-stealing opportunities against others (of course, staying within rational parameters) 2) Most players are going to loosen up in the search for opportunities but it is correct to play tighter since you're likely to have to pay a lot to see the flop (again dependent somewhat on just what type of maniac you're dealing with). Roy's specific example is throwing away the low suited connnectors, which makes a lot of sense to me. I would also think the "trouble hands" (KJo, etc.--including JTo?) get upgraded in value here, probably also hands like A8o and K9o, depending a little on how strong the tendency toward heads-up (and away from multi-way) is. 3) It's extremely important to get fast and accurate reads both on maniac and on the way in which other players adjust. 4) for me as an online player, the tells aspect is less exploitable (although I have seen a lot of chat action with some maniacs, and that might be worth analysing more) but clearly huge for real-time play Then there's a very important point on position with respect to maniac. I'd like to hear more on this. Things were more clear to me when the maniac is to your right (which I think Roy views as the preferred situation). The basic idea, if I'm understanding Roy correctly, is to isolate a lot (by raising the maniac) on hands you want to play heads-up with the maniac--I'm assuming we're talking about all pairs, AX and KX (taking into account Roy's cautionary notes if other players are catching onto this play). I'm a bit hazy on the part about when the maniac is to your left. The main advantage I see in this position is that you are able to see how everyone else has reacted to the maniac's play before making your own decision. But I'm really fuzzy still on what this actually means for how to play your hands and what hands become more or less advantageous to play. Any further ideas or elaborations? One observation as to the hands in this case: They need to meet two standards: 1) They're playable against the other non-maniacal players who are still in the hand, 2) You still want to play them should the maniac raise (also dependent on specifics as to just what the maniac is doing and how others are responding--under certain conditions the "multi-way" hands might become playable again in this position). Maybe this is the position in which one's play really has to be the most variable in terms of "switching gears" dramtaticlly from one hand to the next depending on how the drama is unfolding in the specific instance. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Roy's "maniac" article, Roy Cooke, 1. Dec 2003 10:39 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hi Aisthesis Very good post with very good thoughts. When the maniac is to your left, you have the opportunity to check-raise the field and (As you pointed out) see what the rest of the field does so you can make a decision based on more information. Life is Good :-) Roy Cooke on 30. Nov 2003 11:41 Aisthesis wrote: > Well, with all my recent interest in dealing with maniacs/tiltos, Roy's > cardplayer article on this topic was most interesting to me. To me, the article > confirms the multi-dimensionality/complexity of the problem and hence the > importance of being able to adjust quickly and appropriately to the situation. > His paradigmatic case was at a limit table but I really think almost everything > there applies pretty much equally in NL. > Here was my take on some of the important results, along with a few things that > are still a little unclear to me: > 1) The other players are going to be focussed on maniac, hence much less > energetic in play on hands where the maniac is out, hence more pot-stealing > opportunities against others (of course, staying within rational parameters) > 2) Most players are going to loosen up in the search for opportunities but it > is correct to play tighter since you're likely to have to pay a lot to see the > flop (again dependent somewhat on just what type of maniac you're dealing with). > Roy's specific example is throwing away the low suited connnectors, which makes > a lot of sense to me. I would also think the "trouble hands" (KJo, > etc.--including JTo?) get upgraded in value here, probably also hands like A8o > and K9o, depending a little on how strong the tendency toward heads-up (and away > from multi-way) is. > 3) It's extremely important to get fast and accurate reads both on maniac and > on the way in which other players adjust. > 4) for me as an online player, the tells aspect is less exploitable (although I > have seen a lot of chat action with some maniacs, and that might be worth > analysing more) but clearly huge for real-time play > > Then there's a very important point on position with respect to maniac. I'd > like to hear more on this. Things were more clear to me when the maniac is to > your right (which I think Roy views as the preferred situation). The basic idea, > if I'm understanding Roy correctly, is to isolate a lot (by raising the maniac) > on hands you want to play heads-up with the maniac--I'm assuming we're talking > about all pairs, AX and KX (taking into account Roy's cautionary notes if other > players are catching onto this play). > I'm a bit hazy on the part about when the maniac is to your left. The main > advantage I see in this position is that you are able to see how everyone else > has reacted to the maniac's play before making your own decision. But I'm really > fuzzy still on what this actually means for how to play your hands and what > hands become more or less advantageous to play. Any further ideas or > elaborations? One observation as to the hands in this case: They need to meet > two standards: 1) They're playable against the other non-maniacal players who > are still in the hand, 2) You still want to play them should the maniac raise > (also dependent on specifics as to just what the maniac is doing and how others > are responding--under certain conditions the "multi-way" hands might become > playable again in this position). Maybe this is the position in which one's play > really has to be the most variable in terms of "switching gears" dramtaticlly > from one hand to the next depending on how the drama is unfolding in the > specific instance. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Roy's "maniac" article, danimales, 1. Dec 2003 11:04 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Yea, I tend to tighten up when a maniac is at the table. Just the other day I had two maniacs to deal with, plus a couple loose agressive players. They would play anything, and I saw them go head to head a couple of times betting the max and calling all the way to the river, and squaring off with hands like King high beating a Queen high hand. Unfortunately, I was getting dealt cold cards; very difficult not to go on tilt in this situation. Being patient enough, I eventually landed a straight and bet out one of the maniacs who made a pair of nines on the flop and expected to win. Boy did that feel good! | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Roy's "maniac" article, Aisthesis, 1. Dec 2003 11:51 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Good job! Getting into this "random hand" vs. "random hand" type of thing is definitely not a good idea, I think. Thinking about this some more, a few other ideas: 1) In addition to Roy's checkraise note when sitting to the right of the maniac, I've noticed that there is sometimes such a thing as a "provocation bet" with respect to the maniac--one of the ones I saw would almost invariably go all-in if you bet the minimum. Just another option to consider, particularly to the right of maniac. 2) With a dominant maniac, I think position with respect to maniac takes priority over regular table position. My hypothesis is that one should really start thinking of EP, MP and LP as positions relative to the maniac (and this position is fairly constant throught the course of an orbit, except that even if you are immediately to the right of the maniac, you will still have LP when you're on the button, etc.). Actually, I guess the proper labels here are more just "before" and "after," with awareness of how many normal players are between you and maniac in each case. 3) On the tightening up: Absolutely, but I think one should note that while certain types of hands become less playable, others also become more playable, depending also on how the table is responding. If just 1 or 2 players are typically seeing the flop along with the maniac, the suited connectors become unplayable, and probably truly low pairs (77 or less). But AX and KX (which unsuited I would almost always muck in a normal game) can become attractive hands to play. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Roy's "maniac" article, KevinK, 1. Dec 2003 11:51 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I did something like that too. I was late in a NL tourney and some maniac came in raising though to his credit he did catch some decent pocket pairs. Anyway when he bet, everyone stayed in their hand but played straighter when he wasn't. I stay out of their way since too many people were in pots. Rather, I decided to wait for a monster pocket to snag him with. Fortunately, I got pocket aces which I called UTG knowing he'd bet out his cards. Thats when I went all in to see the all limpers fold but the maniac. With the limps and doubling up, I was able to quadruple my stack and see him tilt his away. Would have been more enjoyable if I won the damn thing but life happens. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Roy's "maniac" article, Mark Barnett II, 10. Dec 2003 12:30 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| another advantage of having the maniac behind you is to protect your hand, top pair good kicker into a 2 flush/2 straight flop his raise will make the odds worse for them to call Rule #1 of Poker Circumstances alter cases Rule #2 NEVER forget rule #1 | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network |
|