Loose Aggressive/Maniac--Profitable?

Hey guys, new to this site. Will need some time to catch up with the lingo..but I see a lot of intelligent posts here, some good poker talk..looking for advice.
Strictly live player..$2/5 NL. Used to play super tight..or "good" poker should I say..and was somewhat profitable, but pretty inconsistent. Probably predictable. I only won "big" hands when my nuts were against the 2nd nuts lol. Then I went on a cold run..where I'd flop a set or overpair, push with the best hand, and get called by a draw and LOSE..like 15 buyins in a row. I'm not one to throw my hands in the air and say "oh I didn't do anything wrong..just bad luck". no way. I totally threw "good" poker book out the window and became a maniac on the table.
INSANELY profitable. I have been on a ridiculous streak (last 20 sessions..and while I understand thats a small sample..they were 8-10 hr sessions,and I"ve netted a ridiculous amount over them. I think I'm on to something..which is why I'm here asking for advice). Obviously, need some hands to illustrate. I'll explain a couple from y last session..which have basically been recurring in all these sessions.
Sat with $300..up to $400. 6-7 diamonds. UTG makes it 20..I make it 50 from middle position. One other caller, UTG calls. A Q 4 rainbow flop. UTG checks, I check..last to act makes it 80. Typical crap. UTG folds..I shove. Opponent folds. I show.

(then, around an hour later, when I'm at $800..and am being labeled "aggressive" and "fish" for calling $25's with just about anything)
KK in big blind. Tight, "good" player with $700 behind, in middle position, makes it 30. I raise to 100. Folds around..she calls. 553 flop. I know it's mine..she would have reraised with AA, and doesn't have the range to play any 5 here. F slowplay...she has an overpair and thinks I randomally fire all the time. I fire out 100. She pushes in, I instacall. She shows 10-10 and goes "bullshitt! I would never ship all my chips with 10's but I know you're terrible and youd play anything in that spot". Angrily rebuys. lol
Is this type of play sustainable over the long haul? Or should I expect my luck to run out. I won't lie, I've been catching breaks often (IE betting/bluffing on draws..then hitting. =huge pots)
When someone raises with JJ..is it really a terrible "fish" move to reraise them with 7-8 suited? I seriously am taking down that pot most of the time. Sometimes an overcard flops..I check..they "bet to see where they're at"..I raise heavy because I read that and they fold. Sometimes I outflop them and they ship. When the flop is 2-5-10? go ahead, take my $40 or 50 bucks.
I guess what I'm asking...would you attribute this run to "luck"--expect it to end? Would you suggest reverting to "good" poker? (please, don't explain to me that playing 40-50% of your hands is in the "bad poker player" book. I know that. Question..why is it working?)

20 ten hour sessions of live poker is only ~20*30*10 = ~ 6000 hands. Some players here do that in a day. Others have been on 100,000 run bad or run good. It is definitely just good luck.

First, the 2nd hand looks good actually, maybe bet a little bigger on the flop.

The first hand is really, really bad; first, don't sit without a full stack. You try to 3bet bluff in a live game with people who think you suck. Then you shove 350 into a pot of 230 with 7 high. No, that kind of play is not going to be profitable in the long run. Calling 5 bb raises every hand is also not profitable.

Also, welcome to Cardschat. There are many, many resources here to help you become a better player.

Thanks!
1-100,000 hands can be considered a good or bad run? wow
2-Full stack the way to go? is that fact? I debate what I should buyin all the time..why is it better?
3-BTW, if it matters, I don't have an image as of the first hand, which is why it worked (that time and consistently, in this run at least). Only in the second hand I'm labelled "fish" (due to hands like the first one)..and am paid off for simply playing a big hand the right way. Like I mentioned earlier in post, I've played tight poker... and had spots like 10 10 vs KK...10's would almost NEVER ship its ENTIRE stack in that situation. Recently I've seen a ton of players ship with less than premium hands..and I'm really thinking its cause i'm labelled FISH.

Full stack is better because you win more with big hands (sets, straights, flushes) than you do with a smaller stack. There are other reasons, I'm sure some other players can add them in, but that is the most important.

Sorry about the mistake about your image in the first hand, but still, 3bet bluffing 76s in live poker is (usually) lighting money on fire. People like to call (as you saw), so you don't really have any fold equity, which is what you need to make a 3bet bluff.

Full stack also provides u the capacity to make more moves than ss.

Yeah your right Amroth... Thats why I always buy in for the maximum!

... sigh

you really can't compare live and online. Live games are so much softer. For someone playing decently, the edge you have in a live game is mindblowingly bigger than the edge you can have in an online setting.

Play around with this

http://www.evplusplus.com/poker_tool...nce_simulator/

and change the winrate and number of hands variables. The reason online poker players need so many hands to get reliable results is that online winrates are super low. That really does not apply to live games.

A couple of months ago I thought that LAG and maniac were the same thing.

I can't see a maniac as a good player. Maniacs are highly exploitable since their only game plan is to take you out of the hand with air and slowly build up the pot when they hit something.

A LAG, as I see it in theory (never met one on a table) is a very skilled TAG with a huge range from late position. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

To play this kind of game (LAG, not maniac) you need a lot of skill. And to use all the moves in your arsenal you need a full stack. Not to mention that a LAG won't be given much credit for his big hands and with a full stack it's easy to double up big, after all, who will call a nit that shoves the flop?

I definitely agree, but it is still possible OP is on a heater, especially considering the first hand...

meh, I'll just keep playing +ev
your risking a buyin in hopes that:
you later run good and catch a big hand?
all of the players are paying attention to see your fishy move?

this play seems VERY high varaince.
alot of varibles specialy if your first intial fish move gets pwned.

I think the biggest difference between a LAG and maniac is that a maniac misplays their big hands when they actually really do have something good and they ultimately either get little value for it or get sucked out on because they slowplayed it too much....a classic maniac is a trapper when they have a monster and a pusher when they are weak or on a draw....exactly why I never lose money to these morons because 9 out of 10 you can spot when they have a big hand and they often give away their stack on a draw so long as they don't suck out....a LAG is going to play similar whether they are weak or strong and make it extraordinarily hard to identify when they have the nuts or just bottom pair...classic example, making a call for a 200$ all in against a maniac on a board of 4-4-7 when they check raise your flop bet and you have pocket 10s is a very easy call because you know they won't make that play if they've got the set, a LAG WILL call your pre-flop raise there with A-4 and make that exact play, 10 minutes later he will bet into you in the same situation, and 10 minutes after that he'll trap you to the river, what he will not do is shove with nothing on the flop although he wants everyone at the table to think he is the sort of player who will do that....I agree you do not see this player very often and I think I have come across 2 or 3 in 6 years of playing live.

I watched a Maniac burn through three BI last night in ten minutes...it was fun and I won half a BI off of him.

He doubled his stack after he shoved 9 6 offsuit, Aces snapcalled, and he made two pair. Then he just started shipping almost every hand preflop. His stack quickly dwindled to just half a buy-in then I called his preflop shove with Ace Jack; and he had Ace Three :-)

I don't see how playing maniac could ever be profitable. Would I be correct in saying that the ideal LAG is a "bomb" with well-timed aggression in position?

Tom Dwan

LOL, jungleman ftw....
- He's more machine than man

I have played the maniac style on 6 max NL 100. I earned 600 dollars in 3 hours playing 3 tables one day. The next day I met an other maniac who was better than me. Because of him I went on tilt, and I lost 800 dollars.......... After that I self excluded myself for one month because I was in a bad mood.

I think it can be profitable if you are not going on tilt, in my opinion this is the best playing style, but almost no one has the ability ore the disipline to do it.

Here are som poker hands from my maniac periode:



Uploaded with ImageShack.us