A Duel With The Big Aggressor

[cheetaking 0]

This is an interesting hand which just came during my semi-nightly trip to the Pokerstars .25/.50 tables. I wasn't the hero, but I thought it was a fun hand to look back at.PokerStars Hold'em No Limit ($0.25/$0.50) - 2007/01/01 - 04:42:15 (ET)Seat #4 is the buttonSeat 1: Villain ($96.80 in chips) Seat 2: ($52 in chips) Seat 3: Hero ($166 in chips) Seat 4: BUTTON ($36.80 in chips) Seat 5: SB ($92 in chips) Seat 6: BB ($51.90 in chips) Seat 7: ($22.45 in chips) Seat 9: ($26.30 in chips) NOTES ON PLAYERS:Hero has played a very smart game so far, and has clashed with Villain numerous times. Villain has been hammering away at the chat box, and Hero has out-played him when he was bluffing several times already, so Villain is probably putting Hero's play at a very high level, and you can tell that he's getting a little frustrated.Villain is the resident maniac, playing almost half of the hands he sees to the flop, and almost always following his pre-flop raises with a continuation bet. He has just check/folded, check/called, and check/raised the flop too, though, so his variety is not too bad. Also, several hands ago, someone took a stand against him and doubled him up after he faked making continuation bets and bluffs when he really had pocket kings. He is very aggressive, but has the skill to overbet monsters and bluff on slow-plays as well. Then again, just 30 hands ago, Hero called two straight increasing bets from him after he represented the flop, and thenmade the minimum re-raise and he folded while Hero showed him a complete bluff as well. He was steamed, and hasn't shut up about it since. So he is definitely maniacal, but not completely stupid. Also, he seems to try and read the other players, and has been more willing to call overbets than value bets in the past.SB posts small blind [$0.25]BB posts big blind [$0.50]*** HOLE CARDS ***[A 7 ](2 Folds)Villain raises $2 to $2.50Villain raises a lot, and you have been able to out-play him after the flop on several occasions, so calling with the A/7 and trying to take the pot down after he bluffs at it seems like a good idea.UTG+3 FoldsHero calls [$2.50](3 Folds)POT SIZE: $5.75*** FLOP ***[8 5 9 ]Villain bets $3.50Just as we expected, the flop came with crap and Villain threw out his traditional continuation bet. With an inside straight draw, and pretty much nothing of value that we can put him on, a call seems legitimate, just to see what he does.Hero calls $3.50POT SIZE: $12.75*** TURN ***8 5 9 [K ]Villain bets $8Looks like another bluff attempt. He could have the king... he's shown in the past that he is willing to make this bet whether he has it or not, but it still seems kind of unlikely with the overbet. Now you have a straight draw, a flush draw, and still have an overcard, and because Villain is so aggressive the implied odds are huge. And even if we miss, we can still win the pot with a nice raise back in his face on the river, so the odds are good. A call seems reasonable.Hero calls $8POT SIZE: $28.75*** RIVER ***8 5 9 K [5 ]Bingo! We've hit the nut flush. Now we just have to wait for Villain to bet so we can win the huge pot.Villain checksWell, that was certainly unorthodox. Logically, this seems that he realizes that he's been caught (again) and has given up. With the knowledge that he responds to overbets, though, and the memory of the last time he got outplayed by Hero fresh in his mind, a nice big bet might suck some more money from him.Hero bets $20Villain raises $62.80 to $82.80 and is all-inHero ?Well, that was random. The check/all-in on the river is by far the fishiest thing that Villain has done this entire session. So far, every time he has check/raised he has had at least 2 pair, so suddenly the flush doesn't look so good with the paired board. If this was a blatant re-raise after a bet, the call would be pretty easy, but why would he check? Perhaps he has finally figured out how to out-play us, or maybe he's just acting like the donk he's made himself out to be in the chat wondow. So, what to do? Play it safe and lay down the flush in fear of a potential boat after the suspicious check/raise on the river, or take a stand?

[disctiger85 0]

The check/raise on the river is definitely a strange play. I really doubt he's checking a made full house on the river and definitely not pushing it. Hands I like to give him based on the way the hand played out.....5x, or a lower flush(he likely plays both this way). I'd likely say to myself that he was bluffing the whole time and thought he got bailed out on the river. As to what he puts you on, I have no idea, but it definitely isn't the nut flush.Needless to say, I'm almost always calling in this spot...especially against the resident maniac.

[David_Nicoson 1]

Also, he seems to try and read the other players, and has been more willing to call overbets than value bets in the past.

I find that people with this tendency make big bets for their own bluffs. Are the flop and turn bets sizes consistent with his previous c-betting?The size of his river bet isn't out of line, but it's as large as he can make it. I think we pay this off. With his reputation, he may even be betting trips for value with this bet.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

The check/raise on the river is definitely a strange play. I really doubt he's checking a made full house on the river and definitely not pushing it. Hands I like to give him based on the way the hand played out.....5x, or a lower flush(he likely plays both this way). I'd likely say to myself that he was bluffing the whole time and thought he got bailed out on the river. As to what he puts you on, I have no idea, but it definitely isn't the nut flush.Needless to say, I'm almost always calling in this spot...especially against the resident maniac.

I agree with this analysis.No monster from the Villan. I ride the Nut Flush.

[NoSup4U 0]

If the villian is indeed this aggressive and checked a boat on the river, then he sucks. So I call just knowing that if he does have me beat, it will be easy to get my money back from him.Mark

[cheetaking 0]

Seems like no more replies are coming, so here are the results:Hero didn't think about it very long. He called almost instantly, sure that he was catching the Villain on a bluff.Villain, unfortunately, was far from bluffing this time. He showed K/K for the full house, and had led Hero along through the hand like a dog on a leash by overbetting with his monster on purpose, and making a completely unorthodox bet on the river. I, too, was surprised from my 3rd person perspective, because I was sure that the maniac had been caught. BUt apparently he was smarter than everyone thought, and cashed out $130 ahead for the night two rounds later. As soon as he left the table, three other players from the table also left. (Too bad... if Villain had stayed, it looks like he could have made some more money off of them too.)Hero bought more chips, and kept playing for another hour or so, easily recovering the money he lost in that hand and still cashed out over $50 ahead.This, to me, was a perfect example of why table image is so important. If Villain were a rock, he would have just won the blinds with his monster, because there's no way Hero would have called pre-flop with A/7, let alone the post-flop bet where he thought he had him figured out. So by playing more aggressively and faking predictability, Villain won an extra $80 on that hand alone because people started calling him every time he bet to try and catch him bluffing.Just some food for thought.

[DonkSlayer 1]

Well, maniacal players do make money on the notion of other players that they're maniacal. He must have a better read on you and others than you might give him credit for. Have you been bluffing or value-betting rivers when you're checked to?I would raise the flop in position if I was going to play it past there; take control of the hand or find a fold if he gets really aggressive.I'm calling the river, however.