How to handle a maniac in limit hold 'em

[Dan Druff]

Let him bluff you (fold) when you have no-pair-no-draw, even if you think HE is bluffing. Check-call all draws that don't have showdown value if they miss. "Showndown value" is defined as having king-high or better. Pound him back with top pair or better. Never fold any pair and most ace-highs.

Some people feel the need to "out-bluff" maniacs, and that's a mistake. You want to out-value maniacs, meaning forcing them to put in the most bets when you're ahead, and the fewest when you're behind. There's no harm in letting him bluff you a few times. You'll get that money back (and more) when you actually hit a piece of something.

You also need to avoid slow-playing maniacs. Therefore, you should play middle pair on the flop the same way you would a set. The only difference is that you will eventually slow down on the turn with the middle pair, whereas you'll keep firing with the set! Don't slowplay huge hands against maniacs, because you will be giving up lots of value, and the maniac may actually slow down if he thinks you're slowplaying! If you go to 4 bets on the flop (in position) with middle pair, he is likely to give you 4 bets on EVERY STREET if he has something like top pair or 2 pair against your set or better. This is because he will think that YOU are willing to raise him back with light holdings, and therefore he won't give your huge hands the respect they deserve!

Now, how do you handle games with several maniacs? In those cases, you need to tighten up some pre-flop, and then pound your hands hard post-flop if you hit. Remember not to go TOO crazy with hands like top pair (if encountering re-raising), because SEVERAL maniacs increases the chance that one will hit something freaky on you (such as a weird 2 pair or straight). At the same time, you can't play scared, or you will be giving them better odds to suck out on you. It's a balancing act. It's FAR easier to play against one maniac than several. This is why my "dream" lineup of opponents would include 2 passive limp donks and 3 tight, straightforward players.

[son of lockman]

good advice ...

i like to bet most buttons, sit behind him, and bet any two cards over 8...usually i do well..

sometimes this good strategy fails and does frustrate some... oh well that's poker

[Steve-O]

As a more general piece of advice on this front --in looser live games-- I like to sit to their right not their left. In the old days (pre-2003) you could isolate a maniac, but in today's poker world pretty much everyone knows what you're doing and you end up in four-bet pots with hands like ATs and 88, trapped between a nutball and a player repping a really good hand who has position on you.

Now I feel it's better to sit on their right and sand bag with your really strong hands pre-flop to try to induce other players to call or raise the Maniac themselves. You can balance this by also limping with some pairs and hands like JQs since you really don't mind a few players calling a raise in these spots and you can just toss it if the action comes back to you 4-bet. This can also work to your advantage post flop when you flop a monster and can get players stuck between you and the maniac --giving you position relative to the raiser.

Using this strategy (sitting on their right) also allows you to still isolate a true maniac since he's likely to 3-bet if you raise with a hand like AJ or KQ, and with the action going in reverse the rest of the players will tend to give your raise a little more credit. Of course, this is only applicable to a TRUE maniac, there are plenty of different degrees.

And I totally agree with Druff; one Maniac is perfect, two is dealable depending on your seat, but three+ can give you fits on a lot of nights --especially if they are joined by two or three calling stations.

For full ring Limit I'd like the following lineup: Seat 1-3 Calling Stations: Seat 4 ME: Seat 5 Maniac: Seat 6-9 weak tight or Tight Abc players

[Dan Druff]

I don't agree that it's better to sit on the maniac's right. I agree that being to his direct right is better than, say, being on the opposite side of the table (neutral position), but I still believe that being to his direct left is best, even if your opponents know that you are isolating him with marginal hands.

There are a few reasons for this:

1) You aren't gaining anything by making the maniac 3-bet instead of you isolate-3-betting. Your alert opponents won't respect the raises either way.

2) It is always better to act second, even against a maniac. You will get extra bets in the long run, especially against a maniac capable of checking behind.

3) It's easier to isolate opponents out post-flop. This is because the maniac won't always raise if you bet into him.

4) You are putting the pressure on your opponents, rather than them putting the pressure on you. For example, let's say you have QTo. If you're on the maniac's left, you will 3-bet him with this hand. However, if you're to his right, someone else will probably have already 3-bet him, and perhaps someone else will have 4 bet! So what do you do with QTo? You'd probably dump it. If you're on his left, YOU are putting your opponents in the tough position of figuring out what to do with hands like QTo, and you're probably forcing them off some better hands. Same thing post-flop. Basically, being on a maniac's left gives your opponents little information about your holdings (both pre and post flop), but being on his right gives away a lot, if you're calling 3 and 4 bets.

[Steve-O]

I don't agree that it's better to sit on the maniac's right. I agree that being to his direct right is better than, say, being on the opposite side of the table (neutral position), but I still believe that being to his direct left is best, even if your opponents know that you are isolating him with marginal hands.

There are a few reasons for this:

1) You aren't gaining anything by making the maniac 3-bet instead of you isolate-3-betting. Your alert opponents won't respect the raises either way.

2) It is always better to act second, even against a maniac. You will get extra bets in the long run, especially against a maniac capable of checking behind.

3) It's easier to isolate opponents out post-flop. This is because the maniac won't always raise if you bet into him.

4) You are putting the pressure on your opponents, rather than them putting the pressure on you. For example, let's say you have QTo. If you're on the maniac's left, you will 3-bet him with this hand. However, if you're to his right, someone else will probably have already 3-bet him, and perhaps someone else will have 4 bet! So what do you do with QTo? You'd probably dump it. If you're on his left, YOU are putting your opponents in the tough position of figuring out what to do with hands like QTo, and you're probably forcing them off some better hands. Same thing post-flop. Basically, being on a maniac's left gives your opponents little information about your holdings (both pre and post flop), but being on his right gives away a lot, if you're calling 3 and 4 bets.

This is something I first learned to do in loose PLO games, and have had very good results with in loose Limit HE games (of course my style, and the looser, live, small to mid-limit games I'm used to, probably plays into this, for instance I would almost never 3-bet him with QT off unless I was in the cutoff or later). I agree with virtually everything you said, except in point 4: since my goal IS to have multiple people either call, 3-bet or 4-bet him and end up in-between the 2 of us. Being out of position sucks in general, but it's really only a deficiency if you are heads-up against the maniac (i prefaced this as for looser games). In multi-way pots having position relative to the aggressor is a very strong spot to be in.

In the games I'm used to, isolating a Maniac is a futile endeavor, so I'd much rather have 5 opponents for 4 bets than 4 for 3-bets. In a typical online game or a tighter live game I agree that the left is the place to be.

It's also something most poker players aren't accustomed to seeing, so the rest of the table isn't going to pick-up on your strategy as quickly, and even when they do they probably have little experience in adjusting to it. For the most part, if I'm catching cards and really active I almost look like a second maniac in the game and then can adjust my play accordingly, otherwise I just kind of look like a weak/tight player since I'm open-limping too much. Again, like everyhting else in poekr, it all comes down to the game dynamics and the different players involved.

[thesparten]

We need more threads about poker...