kk against a maniac [ps 2/4]

[harvey 0]

As for the hand, i'm bet/calling the turn and c/c the riverif you check to him on the scare card turn, as a maniac, he's betting with ANYTHING there.

This is the entire reason why you should CHECK the turn. If you weren't positively SURE that he would bet the turn, then you would be losing value when he checked behind you and you would have to lead the betting.. With that scare card, your checking virtually garauntees that he will bet with anything (as you said) . So you have the same expected value, if you had led the betting, since him folding is highly unlikely as well.If you lead and get raised, you have a low probability of still having the best hand, and pot odds would still force you to call it down at a much higher risk.Betting the turn is not a good play, not because you are scared, but because there is no logic to it.

[wrto4556 0]

If you lead and get raised, you have a low probability of still having the best hand

thats where the arguement started.

[harvey 0]

thats where the arguement started.

Perhaps I missed something, but most of the arguing I saw was determining what hands he would cap the flop with, not raise the turn with.There is a wide range of hands that he would cap the flop with, yes, but there are very few hands that most(even maniacs) would raise the turn with, thus eliminating most of the possibilities where you would be ahead. On the flop, possibilities included 77-QQ, all of which you beat. But, he wouldn't raise the turn with these hands unless he had one of the higher pairs, and one of the cards was a spade. All the other hands that he would raise with on the turn beat you.if you can name other hands besides JJ with a spade, or QQ with a spade that he would raise with, that you would beat, I'd like to hear them. It would be a very rare maniac that would raise 77-QQ with no spade once the ace of spades hit on the turn..

[wrto4556 0]

It would be a very rare maniac that would raise 77-QQ with no spade once the ace of spades hit on the turn

Not really. Maniac's do that by nature.

[harvey 0]

Not really. Maniac's do that by nature.

well, we must play in different type games then. For me, the type of player that would cap preflop 88 and AJ, does not often translate to the complete maniac that your describing. That kind of player would cap preflop with virtually any hand, and absolute wouldnt have been able to get 20 hands in with the guy cause he'd be out of cash.I don't play at party poker, so maybe this is the difference, <shrug>

[Absolute 0]

It would be a very rare maniac that would raise 77-QQ with no spade once the ace of spades hit on the turn

Not really. Maniac's do that by nature.

this is so true.im going to use results here to prove it.On the turn I check, he bets, I raise, he three bets, I call.River comes the fourth spade I check he bets I call.He shows JJ with a spade to win the hand.That is a maniac for you.

[ddudley 0]

It would be a very rare maniac that would raise 77-QQ with no spade once the ace of spades hit on the turn

Not really. Maniac's do that by nature.

this is so true.im going to use results here to prove it.On the turn I check, he bets, I raise, he three bets, I call.River comes the fourth spade I check he bets I call.He shows JJ with a spade to win the hand.That is a maniac for you.

If the retards didn't suck out occasionally they'd all quit the game and we'd never make any money playing against all good players...

[potpumper43 0]

I think c/c and b/c is too weak. Would even the craziest maniac cap the flop with AQ-AT, facing aggression from Absolute? Maybe, but I doubt it. I'd narrow his range of hands from AA-88, based on the flop cap. You are beating 5 of those hands, tieing one, and losing to one. After the A falls on the turn, AA becomes an even less likely holding for the maniac (probabalistically speaking). Raise/call the turn and bet/call the river. You might be paying off AA, but I doubt that you are paying off AQ-AT on this particular hand.

The craziest maniac doesn't give a shit who Absolute is, who you are, doesn't know or care. His hand is pure mystery and you have to show it down. The maniac is going to pop you on the ace whether he has it or not. Check/calling is not a poor tactic here. The bet gives you no information about his hand.

[cdddc75 0]

I've already said why I think it's an easy bet. OPP has over 70% of hands he raises the turn bet with that we beat. Want to back this up even vaguely?Or just look silly?

You want to quit acting like you know everything. Even after I prove im right, you wont agree, but here gos. Everyone has been iming me telling me to come back and rid the strat section of your weak/tightness.

Those people really suck. The last thing we need this board to become is a circlejerk.

[oreogod 0]

It would be a very rare maniac that would raise 77-QQ with no spade once the ace of spades hit on the turn

Not really. Maniac's do that by nature.

this is so true.im going to use results here to prove it.On the turn I check, he bets, I raise, he three bets, I call.River comes the fourth spade I check he bets I call.He shows JJ with a spade to win the hand.That is a maniac for you.

I am still in agreement with the others in this thread that disagree with the lead turn bet. Now, for the line of leading the turn, I would do it if I had a spade in my hand. As it is, maniac or not, I like his turn play against u (him having a lower pair, but now with a spade draw). I wonder if his stats were reveresed from maniac to TAG if this play would get u to fold KK or QQ here. And if not, and he has a high spade in his hand...like here, he still has outs against u. As long as u dont hold a higher spade than he does.Either way if he pulls this, and has better stats, I bet hes getting a free showdown.

[Briguy 0]

I think c/c and b/c is too weak.  Would even the craziest maniac cap the flop with AQ-AT, facing aggression from Absolute?  Maybe, but I doubt it.  I'd narrow his range of hands from AA-88, based on the flop cap.  You are beating 5 of those hands, tieing one, and losing to one.  After the A falls on the turn, AA becomes an even less likely holding for the maniac (probabalistically speaking).  Raise/call the turn and bet/call the river.  You might be paying off AA, but I doubt that you are paying off AQ-AT on this particular hand.

The craziest maniac doesn't give a censored who Absolute is, who you are, doesn't know or care. His hand is pure mystery and you have to show it down. The maniac is going to pop you on the ace whether he has it or not. Check/calling is not a poor tactic here. The bet gives you no information about his hand.

And yet I was right about this maniac's hand range. Curious.This is for you, Absolute: Get your stinking paws off me, you damn dirty fourth spade! (with apologies to a certain senile old man)

[oreogod 0]

I think c/c and b/c is too weak. Would even the craziest maniac cap the flop with AQ-AT, facing aggression from Absolute? Maybe, but I doubt it. I'd narrow his range of hands from AA-88, based on the flop cap. You are beating 5 of those hands, tieing one, and losing to one. After the A falls on the turn, AA becomes an even less likely holding for the maniac (probabalistically speaking). Raise/call the turn and bet/call the river. You might be paying off AA, but I doubt that you are paying off AQ-AT on this particular hand.

The craziest maniac doesn't give a censored who Absolute is, who you are, doesn't know or care. His hand is pure mystery and you have to show it down. The maniac is going to pop you on the ace whether he has it or not. Check/calling is not a poor tactic here. The bet gives you no information about his hand.

And yet I was right about this maniac's hand range. Curious.This is for you, Absolute: Get your stinking paws off me, you damn dirty fourth spade! (with apologies to a certain senile old man)

Two things. Hes a maniac. He has two hands with villian capping AJ and 88. To dismiss AK-AT is to convienent. He's a maniac, but usually maniacs will not go this crazy unless they do have Ak-AT or some mid to high pp.Probablity wise AA, AK-AT = 45 combos where u are behindKK-88 = 31 combos where u are ahead(u tie KK)So its 45/31 u are behind. Probablility wise.And yes, the craziest maniac will cap AQ-AT preflop. He also has a hand that has the maniac capping AJ preflop. Discounting the A high overs is too convient. You can probably assign a certain percentage to each of the combos, but its a little harder to do with a maniac.So it may not be exactly 45/31 -- you can assign a 75 percent to the 31 combos and 25 percent to the 45 combos...but even I dont think that is right. This isnt a normal player here where u can assign a rational percentage to his range of hands (but I wouldnt mind seeing somebody try in the effort to get a solid discussion going).And its true, the maniac doesnt care who Absolute is, or how he plays, or what his avatar is...hell I doubt the maniac even looked at Absolutes name.