Pokerwiner.com → Within poker principles
Frustrating outcomes like this are not unusual when playing against maniacs in multiway pots differently might save you the pot. But in this hypothetical example, playing slightly differently might save you the pot. First consider the kind of hand you have. More often than not, A♦ Q♥ is not even worth playing against a raise, but against a typical maniac it is so likely to be superior to his hand that you should certainly play. However, note that A♦ Q♥ is a one pair type of hand.
You are generally hoping to flop top pair and have it hold up to win the pot. This is contrasted with a hand like
Which is far less likely to win with one pair, but more likely to make a straight or a flush. One pair has a much smaller chance of holding up when pitted against multiple opponents. When they are all drawing to different hands, there is a good chance one of them is going to get there. So with a hand like A♦ Q♥ it is generally advisable to eliminate other players so that you can play your hand against a small number of opponents. (*What I have described is not the only important reason to try to get it head up with a hand like A♦ Q♥ Beyond the advantages of thinning the field with a one pair type of hand, getting it heads-up against a maniac can eliminate the kinds of trouble in which you found yourself against Fred and Jake. To illustrate, let’s say that instead of just calling Fred’s preflop raise, you reraise him.
Now Jake is almost sure not to call with his J♣ T♥. (If he is going to call three bets cold with J♣ T♥, then he is such a bad player that if you have to have someone else in on this hand he’s the kind of poker player you want ). To be realistic, we’ll assume the limper goes ahead and calls the two additional bets to him. though he might not, such calls the two additional bets to him. Though he might not, such calls seem to be the norm in many games (especially given that he has to expect at least one raise behind him). Fred, of course will at least call. So now it’s a three way pot without anyone behind you. On the flop Fred bets, you raise, the limper folds as before, and Fred calls. It’s now a two way pot, making the turn much easier to play.
Though the absence of the third player could cause Fred to play differently, let’s say his actions are the same now as in the multiway scenario: He checks, hoping to raise. Though you too might consider a different play (betting) in this as contrasted with the multiway situation. See the essay, “Beating the Berzerko: Preflop Against a Maniac” for more. We’ll assume you check along so as to avoid a check-raise and take a free card with this threatening board. On the river it is quite possible that Fred will bet, seeing your check on the turn as a sign that he probably has the best hand. You, of course, have an easy call. Notice that the lack of the third player completely prevented you from being faced with difficult decisions. It is obviously on difficult decisions that you are most likely to make costly errors.
In this case you win a decent size pot which Fred would have taken away from you in the multiway scenario. That’s a costly error avoided. I have illustrated here a major benefit that can accrue from reraising a maniac. There are others as well, some of which I touched on in the essay, “Beating the Berzerko: Preflop Against a Maniac.” Note, however, that while a reraise is often the preflop play of choice against a players who virtually always reraise a maniac. This is wrong. It is a response which stems from a failure to think enough about individual poker hands as well as their larger strategy in the game as a whole.
There are situations which dictate a call rather than a reraise. To mention just one, suppose you are in a middle position holding a hand like and the maniac on your immediate right raises three limpers of varying ability.
Your small pair is generally playable here, but a reraise would probably be a bad idea. If you don’t think you can knock out everyone behind you as well all the limpers, then a call makes much more sense. There are other situations in which you may have a borderline decision between reraising and just calling. On these occasions you might want to consider that if you too often punish a maniac with reraises before the flop, he may actually adjust his play and stop making as many incorrect raises. Do you want him to start playing better? What’s more, you don’t want the other players in the game to become inured to, and start disregarding your reraises. So with good hand that do better multiway for instance, consider just calling some portion of the time.
The Strategic Moment in Holdem / One Way Not to Fold /
Beating the Berserko: Preflop Against a Maniac /
On Into the Storm: Playing the maniac After the Flop
One Reason to Reraise a Maniac / A Simple Read / Countering a Good Reader
Thinking About What They’re Thinking / Out On the Edge
Considerations in Two Blind Stealing Defense situations
Easing the Transition to the middle Limits: Part I
Easing the Transition to the middle Limits: Part II / Multiple Changing Images