Villian Stats (VPIP/PFR/AF): 62/27/11

I am up against a maniac that's been shoving wide against other players, and usually putting them in uncomfortable situations by overbetting.
The sample size is small on this player (n=26). However their stats are showing extreme tendencies so I thought it would be safer to assume their type.
VPIP: 62%
PFR: 27%
AF:11


PokerStars, Hold'em No Limit - £0.01/£0.02 - 6 players
74o preflop range.jpg

Naturally, if they shoved trips or better on the river my equity against their range would be 0%.

If we include all possible AX hands they could've played up until the river, my equity would increase to 34%.
Given the pot odds, I needed 44% against their range. So this wasn't enough to make a profitable call.
river range with just aces.jpg

It's only when we add KX hands to their range that my call becomes profitable, if we add all possible hands they could've called with preflop, and assuming they played them until the river, my equity would increase to 53%.
River range with Kings.jpg





So realistically, would villain play any KX hand until the river and shove?



In hindsight, I think they would play any KX hand up until the river, but shoving would be a stretch.

I thought that by playing passively I could allow the villain to bet with a wider range, given that my hand had SDV, I didn't see the need to bet.
I thought that they would only call/raise with better hands if I did elect to bet/raise.

However, despite the player being a maniac, they would've caught on to the fact that I am not giving up on my hand. And so I think that they would not have bet this much on the river if they were holding KX. Perhaps they thought I was holding AX, and so wanted to fold it while repping trips or better.
So even if the villain showed some very loose tendencies in earlier hands, I believe that shoving the river with KX would be too wide, even for a maniac.
Anyway, I could ramble on and on about this spot, but I will avoid confusing myself.

Do let me know if certain parts are unclear.


So I have some questions for you:
How would you have played this hand?
Are there profitable lines of action that I didn't see?
Are there better ways to narrow villain's range?

Why don't you try adding bluffs like missed spades or J9 to their river jamming range and see if the call is still profitable? When SB overbets, SB either has the nuts or air.

I think that calling the river jam is fine.

A player like that will sometimes have the 4 there, but a lot of the time will just be spaz shoving with hands far worse than yours.

Originally Posted by beginnerbot

Why don't you try adding bluffs like missed spades or J9 to their river jamming range and see if the call is still profitable? When SB overbets, SB either has the nuts or air.

I forget that these bets can be polarising. I added missed draws and spades and it ended up being profitable. In fact I didn't need to add that many bluffs to make the call profitable.
And it makes sense given the villain profile.

Thanks!

Its kind of close. I dont blame you for calling with top two on this runout, and its one of those annoying spots, where we catch up when behind. But I will say, that it is also a situation, where our hand sound better, than it is. Sure we have top two, but if he flopped trips, that does not really change anything, and a flush is possible as well. So you essentially have a bluff catcher, and then the question is, if he is bluffing often enough?

With only 26 hands you dont really know, what this guy "tends to do" all that much. And just because he is loose and aggressive does not mean, that a big overbet is not skewed towards value. In fact one of the few benefits of playing like a maniac is, that it makes it easier to get paid, when you have the goods. So I do think, he owned you a little bit here, and maybe folding would have been a better option.