How to avoid getting creamed by maniacs?

I know I've made comments in the past about letting the luck even out, but at the moment it's feeling like I'm getting run over by the players I'd generally want to have at the table...
This lunchtime, I lost $80 playing at a 6-max Omaha H/L Limit $1/2 table where one player was raising every hand and every street (well, he folded on the river once and just called a raise a couple of times, but generally it was raise, raise, raise, almost guaranteed).
I tried raising pre-flop to push out other players with a strong high hand, but then lows hit and apart from one scoop, that just lost money.
So I switched to looking more at A2, A35 suited and so on, calling and seeing what the flop brought, but I just either missed the low, didn't make a high, and got scooped pretty much every time.

At the moment I'm seeming to have small wins and (relatively) massive losses. It wouldn't be so bad if I was having a lot of small wins to outweight the losses, but right now I'm not. I've cleared about $5 of bonus while losing $85 at Full Tilt.

So, my question, for the other Limit Omaha H/L players out there is this: what strategy would you adopt in this situation? I tightened up my hand requirements a little, and decided that generally I wanted to see a flop as cheaply as possible, because I could swell the pot enough anyway, but that didn't work. Was that the right strategy? Or should I have looked more at A23 or high hands? Or is a raiser like that a bad proposition at Limit Omaha H/L, and should I aim more for passive tables?

how about leave table and move to another?

no need to move to another table, something similar happened to me the other night when I decided to play 3/6 limit omaha h/l i bought in for 57 lost to a donk who kept raising like you said pretty much every hand, what happened was a i had AA and hit my he chased low and hit a str8 and scooped, I rebought tightened up and next thing u know i leave the table with 200 something.
Basically just tighten up and just play really strong hands vs him. don't raise pre because you can do that postflop.

Yes, playing tight ... only taking him on when you're strong ... keep folding. When they get no action, they calm down a bit. Another tact I like to use if "baiting" him. Put in a call or check, with others in the hand (hopefully yet another bully), then fold quickly .. leaving him to deal with others. Sometimes they lose alot that way.

I agree with ItLegacy! Play really tight. It's boring to do it, but you don't lose money. Also, check the full tilt website for Chris Ferguson's tips on money management. Online Poker at Full Tilt Poker - Chris Ferguson Pro Tips: Pro Tip 100 It's better to limit your cash into a game to like 10% of your bankroll so you don't lose so much! When the cash is gone, it's really gone!!

I do believe in lady luck. Some days all you do is win, and other's you can't get a hand worth a flip!! The "Sit Out" button helps me deal with the boredom of playing tight. I just watch my hand come and go without lifting a finger! When the good hand comes (AJAK, suited of course), THEN I return to the game.

Good luck!

I long ago realized that in Omaha H/L there was little reason to be raising because the pots are gonna get monstrous anyway. Cheap flops are my method. Then only chasing monsters.

Then I ran into the maniacs described above, and decided they would FORCE me to evaluate my hand more appropriately. I don't mind this at all. I see it like the player in HoldEm who re-raises before I act with my JJ and lets me lay down the jacks with little concern.

It sounds like you are just on an anti-rush. This is either payback for some fabulous run you have already experienced, or one you will soon experience.

Variance abhors a vacuum, and in the fullness of time it will complete a perfect bell curve (statistically speaking). Your job, should you accept it, is to attempt to figure out how your hands fit in that variance bell curve scheme, and whether or not you can shoehorn it into a positive solution.

This message will self destruct in 5 seconds.

Had another bad run... but only $20 this time... I think part of the problem is having a long good run at $0.25/0.50 to $0.50/1.00 then having a serious bad run at $1/2... this time I definitely happier with my play - I had at least $40 of pots rivered by weak draws hitting very early on (e.g. a 2-outer catch on one of the hands), and my biggest profit on a pot actually came from a hand where I decided to bet my draw and didn't get called on the river having missed (possibly helped by not really bluffing aside from that).
As far as the maniac cooling down goes, in over an hour of play that's all they did - raise, raise, raise... they'd said they had no intention of playing normally. As far as I'm concerned, that should have been great, because as you've said you know you can fold on the flop or pump the pot when you're ahead. The problem was making nut trips and getting rivered by a straight draw.
I think apart from anything I'll look at going back to full ring games, as the short-handed nature has increased the losses when running cold like this, and when you're only getting splits because your draws at the other end keep missing you don't get enough back short-handed to make up for the blinds and complete misses.

glad to hear it turned around for ya, hope u continue to do better omaha hi lo in cash games is very different i had to find out the hard way also, so if u do find out the seceret to dodgeing donks let me know lol

If it took an extremely loose player to make you start looking to play only premium hands, your preflop range was a bit loose anyways.

I like succinct.


---

Ya tighten up. And move to full ring games 9-10 players, where u dont get pushed off your blinds by a maniac so often.

Full table is definitely better for solid play - I think the more passive play on there also helps, as you're seeing flops more cheaply, so the variance is less. While maniacs may be profitable, I'm figuring they may be more beneficial at full ring games, where you can use them to get money out of other players who won't respect their bets.
On 6-max tables, I'm still trying to work out what the best strategy is, I guess. My starting hands were basically based on Hutchison point-count rules, plus playing a few hands which would either fit or fold from the Big Blind since the effective cost was halved. When someone else raised, I'd question whether my hand had backup as well. My starting hands were the same ones I'd been pretty consistently profitable at on Stars... I suspect the problem is that the players I've been against on Full Tilt have generally been more aggressive.
I'm getting the impression that the Hutchison method doesn't really work so well against really aggressive players (particularly short-handed), as it favours A2-type hands which will often flop just a low draw with back door high draws. You then have to determine whether you're getting the right odds on the combined draws against looser players who have every chance of having the stronger made high hand (through on average having less low cards).
The question is what hands it improves the value of. I'm guessing that A2+Pair and A3+Pair hands might benefit. While suited cards will occasionally flop a straight, that's pretty uncommon (1%?), so again you're looking at paying for draws, just hopefully you'll have more draws to use, and even the 1 suited card will give you a back door draw to marginally improve your odds. I'd therefore not necessarily worry about that too much. A23 is almost certainly improved in value, because other players are more likely to play A2 hands, and you'll sometimes be able to cap the pot with a redraw to counterfeit their lows. AA2, AA3 hands, particularly suited or double-suited I'd figure have the best potential, as they may remain the best on the flop (occasionally), have reasonable high potential anyway, and have at least a half-decent shot at nut low.
I know about the potentially significant number of outs you can get from wrap straight draws, but I'm not sure how significant they are in terms of starting hand selection - if they're connecting low cards or the like then they'll either not be looking at nut low most of the time, or will generally be drawing to the nut straight. That leaves 4 paint cards, which haven't fared too well for me either - I guess there I've possibly played a little loose, and should follow the Hutchison high-only selections in which any 4 high cards has to also be either double suited, suited with a pair, or double-paired, so you're looking at either 2 good suits for potential flushes along with the potential for wrap straight draws, 1 suit and a shot at trips, or 2 shots at potentially nut trips with some lesser straight potential.

In any case, do people agree on it being not just playing tighter, but placing slightly different emphasis on hand types that's important, and if so which hands would you look to play short-handed against maniacs?

For the record, this time I opted for the full-ring $0.5/1 table and came away with a modest profit. I actually made one of my drawing hands this time, and mostly made the most of made hands. Maybe I'll revert to the full ring games... I'd figured that 6-max might be more profitable due to the maniac players who'll happily pump the pot with nothing, but at the moment it's looking like that isn't the case, or at least that variance is much, much higher there.

Oh and in terms of good and bad runs.... it's almost exclusively been bad runs on Full Tilt, but I'm just trying to figure out what changes I need to make to my strategy - I've cashed out 3x the amount I ever took out of my bank account from poker as a whole, so however large or small my bankroll is at the moment, it's all profit anyway, so can't be that bad.

I have only limited knowledge of limit Omaha8 (I usually play PLO8), but I think the most common problem when playing against maniacs is calling down too light, not calling too wide pre-flop.

That statement could have an effect on your game also.