blonde poker forum

If someone on your table is moving all-in for 80 dollars a pop on a 2/4 table with any Ace, Pair, or K-Q, what is your minimum calling hand?

JJ QQ KK AA AK AQ personally

I dont think you should predetermine a hand level in anticipation of clashing with this guy.

It's dangerous to decrease/increase the strength of any given hand with a guy like this on the table as it sometimes affects the pots you play with others, not in that you'll over play marginal hands but preoccupy yourself with the antics of the maniac and not fully concertrate on other hands in which your involved.

I'd be looking to play my own game but factor in this guys behaviour WHEN your faced with a heads up decision against him where you think you may be going in jolly.

Another reason why i wouldn't want to predefine a hand I'd be willing to take him on with is position. I dont know the seating structure but if you decide that AQ is good against this guy you gonna call from second position if he moves all in UTG?

so what would you call him with?

premium hands out of position, AK in position(which i still dont like) and thats it.

you want kq vs 22 with this guy? i dont! you can play black jack for that you give this guy a race its the best odds he'll get all night, thats if you dont happen to walk into a big hand(bad players get them to)!!

I know that you can play and feel you have an edge so why do you want to marginalise your edge crap shooting?

you get weak players that like flops you know!!!! :D I know you know about them they pay your bills right? theres enough of them about just wait for the next bus load to arrive and let this guy do what he has to do!!

I don't think it is crap-shooting if you're likely to have the better hand.

I wouldn't call with 2-2 because of the possibility of being up against a pair. If, however, he has K-Q and I'm only a 1% (or whatever it is) favourite, then I'd happily take this. I have refills behind me, so surely any probability edge is a lucrative one in the long-run.

I'm not sure I could fold A-K when there's a good chance that'll I have his Ace dominated. It's a coinflip at worse.

Your right but is it AS lucrative as the advantage you hold over the weaker players that you can outplay throughout a hand?
 
I know you wouldn't go with deuces against him i was talking about him having them to your overcards.

surly you've got a better than 1% advantage against the weaker players?

The point i was trying to make is that i dont think you need this action.

I faced this situation on several occasions in cash games and what really pisses me off is that the dynamic of a game Ive got going just right is significantly altered by some lunatic going all in every other hand.

Ive been wrapped up in the easy money enticement offered by these guys many times and justified marginal calls by believing i was a jolly of somesort, but then i always subsequently feel that if I'd compared the odds of me doubling up on that table by outplaying them rather than a race i knew that i wasnt getting anywhere near the same value.

'PokerStove' is a very useful (and free) program for calculating your % equity against a known range of hands like this.

Whether it's AS lucrative or not is irrelevant. This is a cash game in which you can refill if you lose your confrontation with the maniac. The players will still be there for you to outplay after the hand, this is merely an additional bonus in which you have an statistical advantage. If he outdraws you, then so be it, but there's no way I'm folding A-K if I know that he moves all-in with any Ace - you're making an error if you do.

If you don't have many refills behind you, then that's a different matter and folding against the maniac so you can outplay the other players in smaller pots is a more feasible option, but, if you have plenty of rebuys at your disposal (as you ought to in order to feel comfortable at that particular level), then there is no excuse in folding hands to the maniac in which you have a statistical edge.

Having said this however, there must be a cut-off point to the hands you can play if you are the remaining player left to act and the maniac has moved all-in. Remember, he is prepared to moved in with any Ace, any Pair, and K-Q.

I was calling with 8-8 and above and A-J and above, but I'm not sure that's correct.

how many times,in theory, will you reload for what you know will only ever be a race if you keep losing, 5, 10,20,50,100?


you say the other weak players will always be there, but they're there now!!!! so why chose the less of two earning possibilities, it doesn't make any sense to me.

I hate a game like that, can you not see that he's making you play a different game than you intended and if you intend to play professionally then continually taking on players against whom you cant outplay is a mistake.

I just cant see how you think this kind of action is an added bonus?

The refills aren't a problem. If I can't afford to refill, then I shouldn't be sitting at the table. Also, don't forget that this is $80 a time on a $2/4 table where the max sit down is $400, but I'd do the same if he moved in with the same starting hands for $400.

I took around $250 off this guy just from seeing him move all-in 3 times.

8-8 vs A-2
K-K vs K-Q
A-J vs A-8

I was the favourite on all three occasions.

He's not changing my game as such, I am simply calling him because the chances are that my hand is better than his and I will take the pot.

I understand what you are saying, but your theory is much more suited to tournaments where playing a big pot (even with the better hand) can cost you your tournament life. eg. Hellmuth claiming to have folded Aces because he'd be better off outplaying them in smaller pots.

But that's tournaments, not cash and your life in the game is not at risk.

As many times as a casino will take a blackjack punters bets

Till they turn out the lights

Depending on your answer to question 20 it might be.  :D

To rephrase the question...

So that you are most likely to go into the hand as favourite, what's your minimum calling hand if someone on your table is moving all-in for 80 dollars a pop on a 2/4 table with any Ace, Pair, or K-Q.

55+, A9s+, A-10o+

Though this doesn't take into account that another player yet to act may find a hand.

Facinating thread in that snoppy asks a question then answers it himself :D
Then defends his position vigorously......
I can see both sides here but as cash isn't really my game i am not sure who is right (if there is a right and wrong).
What i will say is that i have targetted a player like this in the past and the problem i had was that while i was calling HIM with weaker hands than i might otherwise have done i ended up being beaten by other players playing more premium hands than me :D
In effect i turned into a slightly stronger version of the maniac and i'm sure others on the table were posting new topics on poker forums entitled :-

2 maniacs on cash table, what hands should i be calling with!!!

Cheers man, I assume this is done from a calculator or poker tool of some sort.

Pretty interesting, I was going for 8-8+. A-Ts+, A-Jo+

Not too far away, but I wasn't aware that I could call with a pair as low as fives.

ifm - There's always the danger that the maniac creates another maniac. I saw people calling with K-J, A-2, and even 7-3 off, probably just out of pure frustration that they weren't getting a piece of the pie.

When he was making these moves, I was determined not to become one of those people though, so I just stuck to calling with decent hands (although not as strong as normal) and made sure that there was no-one left to act behind me.

The disappointing thing was that I had to stop raising preflop with non-premium hands.

Poker Stove, useful tool!

I would more likely be the maniac than the caller  :D