Pokerwiner.com → Within poker principles
ONE REASON TO RERAISE A MANIAC
Suppose you are playing in a poker game containing a maniac who is seated close to your right. We’ll call him Fred. I’ll specify that he is a maniac who usually remains overly aggressive throughout a hand. Now suppose someone limps in from an early position before the flop.
Fred raises from an early-middle position, and you just call in a middle position with:
A third guy, a weak but somewhat erratic player whom we’ll call Jake calls the two bets cold behind you. The big blind folds.
The Limped and Fred call making this a four way pot. The flop comes
Giving you the top two pair. The first guy checks. Fred bets out.
You figure he could have a flush draw, an ace with any sort of kicker, a gut shot draw with or without a pair, two pair, a pair of queens or jacks with which he’s hoping somehow to win, a straight, or a set. Knowing Fred, the weaker possibilities are not at all unlikely. You probably have the best hand, so you raise. Jake calls cold behind you. You believe he would make such a call with any ace, a flush draw, two pair, or a gutshot draw. You doubt he would slowplay the straight or a set, so you see those hands as unlikely for him. The first player folds and Fred calls. It is now a three way pot. At this point you like your hand.
On the turn comes the
A bad cards for you as any king now beats you. Fred checks.
Does that mean he doesn’t have a king, or does he have one and is trying to check-raise? Though exactly what you should do now is debatable, let’s say you reasonably decide to check along. Now Jake bets. Not good, but if Fred folds or just calls, thereby ruling out the straight for him, you plan to call. You fear that Jake has a king, but you know he is an unthinking player. You have several times seen him bet a flush draw when it’s checked to him on fourth street, no matter what the previous action, oblivious to how threatening the board is. He could be betting two pair as well perhaps thinking, “Well, they checked so I must have them beat.
These possibilities plus your chance of filling up on the river would dictate a call, given the 8.5 –to-1 or 9.5-to-1 pot odds you’ll be getting. But now the action is on Fred. He raises. “Wonderful, ” you think sarcastically. He appears to have the straigh. Alternatively, he could have spiked a set of tens. He might well raise with them here. But this is Fred; he is a maniac and is quite capable of overplaying something like two pair in this spot. He is an excessive bluffer who could even have nothing but a pair, thinking that he can steal the pot if no one has a flush straight, using the scary board as leverage. You could realistically have him beat. If you were head up against just Fred you would go to the river. But against two players showing strength it looks bad for you.
Mor3eover, instead of calling one big bet with pot odds of about 9.5-1, you are now faced with the prospect of calling two bets (with the added possibility of another raise coming from Jake) getting little more than 5-to-1. You quite reasonably decide to fold, but you do so with the nagging recognition that Fred’s raise in this spot may not have meant the same thing as a raise from a “normal” player. Now Jake calls Fred’ raise. The river is a blank. Both players check. That gives you a sinking feeling. Jake turns over a
Fred shows and takes the pot.
So his aggressive play forced you out with the best hand, leaving him to beat the worst hand.
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