TAG Hero vs. all-in maniac, please critique

[Robb]

I'm playing $.05/.10 6-max NLH with $20 max buy-ins. A maniac immediately to my left starts raising and reraising all-in every hand and type chatting bs, calling whole table pussies, etc. for not going all-in with him. Over about 15 hands, he's all-in 10 times. All of them produce all-folds.

I get AK in the cutoff, raise it standard, get rr, and rr back all-in. He obliges, shows down with JT, and the board is all blanks. Plus $10 to hero's br.

Two hands later I get KQ UTG and raise (not my typical play, but I'm hoping to get all-in again). Maniac has rebought for full $20 max buy-in. He rr's, and I rr all-in. He races me to the middle with chips, and shows down AT.

I gulp, ready to see him double through me. Flop's all blanks. Turn's a Q. River's a blank. Plus $20 more to hero. Maniac leaves table. Table congratulates hero.

The more I think about it, however, the more I wonder if these all-ins were really good plays. I like the first, w/ AK. But the second seems marginal. Let me know what y'all think.

[kmind]

If he's really doing this 66% of the time then yeah it's +ev. First one is def. +ev.

[bigspenda73]

If he's doing it every single hand then these are easy all-ins.

There are multiple factors really, the main one being the size of your bankroll. If you are rolled properly for your level these calls should be easy and you should be happy that you are getting full buy-ins into the middle of the pot with hands that hold 60%+ equity against random ranges.

[Robb]

Thanks for the feedback. I'm out of position, and the guy has rr'd. So it made me wonder. I just know because it made money once, that doesn't necessarily mean it's +EV over the long haul.

About the br, it's doing better all the time, thanks to guys like that! I've got $31o on the site, playing $0.05/0.10 w/ 200BB max buy-ins. Technically, I have only 15 buy-ins. But these tables rarely have more than 1 other player besides me who buys in for more than $10. For typical max buy-ins for NL10, I have 31. I do know this, I'm not scared money, and I could move additional br to this site if I lost it all.

[Deanglow]

When these rare situations with maniacs come up, it's always good to have a sound bankroll. I do the same as you in both spots.

[will641]

hand 1 i snap call, and in hand 2 i snap call as well, but a little more reluctantly.

In that situation he happened to be beating you, but from the sound of it he would do this with K9, or 9 10, etc., so you beat about 80% of his range.

[grnydrowave2]

Next time this happens, stove the ranges and decide how much you're willing to gamble. I personally wouldn't be too comfortable playing for stacks with less than 65% equity.

200bb deep? Robb, you're not still at AP are you? GTFO!

[badgers]

I personally wouldn't be too comfortable playing for stacks with less than 65% equity.

Wtf? Ubernit?

[grnydrowave2]

I personally wouldn't be too comfortable playing for stacks with less than 65% equity.

Wtf? Ubernit?

If you say so.

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 34.833% 33.88% 00.95% 150658916664 4240356352.00 { random }
Hand 1: 65.167% 64.21% 00.95% 285545719432 4240356352.00 { 66+, A7s+, A5s, K9s+, Q9s+, JTs, ATo+, KTo+, QJo }

Edit: Er... maybe this is the wrong way of looking at it. Comparing individual hands against a random hand, then yeah that's pretty nitty. Something like AJ+ and 77+

If I could play all day against a maniac like this, I would obviously take smaller edges. However, we don't know how long he'll stick around. He might get up and leave after winning a few flips. I would prefer to be more conservative when there are several hundred bbs at stake.

[badgers]

If I know he's shoving any two then I'm calling as close to top 50% as I can before considering rake, and also depending on players yet to act etc. As long as it's profitable against his range, I'm happy.

I think that your point is interesting about waiting to take bigger edges because he's going to leave. I would counter that by saying you need to take your chance now because otherwise the rest of the table will.

[Robb]

200bb deep? Robb, you're not still at AP are you? GTFO!

Yeah. I've got another $15 in bonuses I've been trying to earn as fast as possible so I can leave completely. Another week, no more. Then I'm done.

[grnydrowave2]

It's important because we're talking about a significant portion of our bankroll. Suppose we have 20 buy-ins at this limit and we only get to take 4 flips against this guy. If we lose all 4 times, which is not too improbable if we're playing top 40% hands, then we've just lost 20% of our bankroll.

Taking small edges for a big chunk of your bankroll for an unkown (probably small) number of trials is a stupid thing to do IMO. I think the fewer trials there are, the tighter your range needs to be. Likewise, the smaller your bankroll, the tighter your range should be.

Maybe there are a few math wizards around that can actually calculate risk of ruin based on bankroll size and number of trials, and give us an actual "correct" answer to this question. Otherwise, it's really a matter of personal preference. Maybe I am just a nit.

[Chopper]

see this thread for an instant understanding of these kinds of maniacs...

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...656&highlight=

[Ash256]

OP, just in case you don't know, www.pokerstove.com