Originally Posted by Egon Towst
Primarily, we mean break it up into paragraphs.
Any large body of text is vastly easier for the reader to follow if each new point or idea is presented as a new paragraph. It both helps him to separate one idea from the next and assists in the actual process of reading. In a large and monotonous block, you blink and you have lost your place.
Yeah you are right, I'll keep that in mind next time I post because I definitely agree with that
Yeah Joe, thats why I said its about 50/50 (well I play it more like 75/25 with the higher being my more aggressive play), because you definitely have the maniac thats just so outrageous that he'll just donk his chips off to you passively
My main point is before you consider playing passive you should first evaluate how much you like your hand, than based on what you know about the aggressive player you gotta put them on a hand, and if you can do that and based on what the board shows than you can determine from there whether you need to protect your hand or not.
If you can't determine what that person has and there are draws out there and you don't think you can call a big bet if one of the draws hits you miswell bet so he's not getting odds
to call his draw if you think your hand was good (even though most maniacs don't understand this concept)
I had a hand I played today in this sit n go rounder it was this one player, true definition of a maniac. blinds are 10/20 and this dude literally calls every hand, even moderate raises especially if he has position. If the pot is checked to him he's guaranteed to bet the pot (if its one thing I hate its a online player that either bets the pot or doesn't bet the pot at all). he would bet the pot shell after shell and would stab at the pot with a potsized bet out of position with minimal callers to the hand
So a hand comes up where maniac is in middle position he's got like no callers in front of him and he raises it up the minimum bb so its 40 to play (starting stacks 1500 by the way), someone else calls in front of him and I call with kq suited and the flop comes qc 8c 5d. Maniac's first to act and bets the pot which is about 160, the next player calls im sure there was probably someone else in the hand that folded but im in position, so I raise it up 350 making sure to tax any draw chasers. Maniac thinks for about a second and than reraises all in, and the next player calls his all in.
Now at this point im thinking this is strange, he raised minimum bb, and I hate this raise especially in the early stages, but the thing was even though he called every hand even most of the raised ones, he never had literally raised the pot before so I was thinking even though his raise is small he definitely has to have some type of hand because he wouldn't raise otherwise. I have no real clue how he plays but he pushed all-in like he knows that he has a certified hand. So I figured he might have Aq and I could be outkicked, but even if he didnt I knew that he probably had something that could beat my queens with king kicker. Plus I figured he would've just called my raise if he had a decent hand based on the way he was playing because he wasn't deceptive enough to switch up his style.
The player that called his all in hand, I knew that I had his hand beat on the flop, because if he was stronger he wouldve raised the minimum raise preflop and if he had him on the flop for sure I figured he would've raised either to protect his hands from draws or simply because he would believe his hand is better.
So I think to myself I just can't call this all in bet not knowing fully how the maniac plays without at least 2 pair so I fold
Maniac turns over pocket aces (if he would've just called he probably couldve trapped me, but like I said I knew he wasn't really capable of trapping me like this, he had a mindset that he wanted to be the most aggressive). The other player ended up calling with a flush draw and ended up drawing out on him.
My point with this is If I didn't raise I think I might have got myself in hot water with this hand. Even though I lost about about 400 chips, I gained the information needed to know that I had to fold that hand.
If I would've just called than not only do I have to worry about draws, but judging by how aggressive he was when he had absolutely nothing I knew that I would have to be willing to call a pot sized bet on the turn no matter what card came. The turn came the flush card, which may have made it easier for me to lay down but it was no way I was putting maniac on that hand particularly and I still had no clue how the other player that called his all in played, so pending on what he did I might've been able to lay my hand down with the sit n go on the line.
If the flush card doesn't come on the turn than when the maniac bets the pot than I'm left with 2 actions, all in or fold, because I know no matter what he has he's gonna bet on the river. Since he's a maniac I might push over top in that situation because I know he could just be overplaying an underpair or just trying to continue his preflop aggression just trying to make a statement.
For the most part on the turn if he bets the pot I wouldve thought well he was gonna bet that regardless, and since his preflop raise was minimal his hand can't really be but so good (when I've never played with someone I typically associate how a hand would be played by an average person until I can assume otherwise based on how they play). For some reason I really don't think I wouldve been worried about the middle players actions, unless he goes all in over top on the turn with out no flush showing. For the most part I wouldve said this dude is a maniac, if he had an over pair he wouldve raised more preflop and I say my chances of going all in on the turn with no flush card is I say about 70% yes, 30% no