slowing down an "all in" maniac?

[CanuckMaGuk 0]

I was playing at a brick and mortar freeze-out tournament a few weeks ago and made it to the final 4 out of 11 players. The final 4 held similar chip stacks and it looked like at any moment a break out hand could pop up and turn the tides. Everybody at the table was playing super tight it seemed as there were plenty of pre-flop folds going around the entire game. One interesting event occured however that seemed to change gears for everybody...One individual began what seemed to be a never ending assault of pre-flop "all - in" bets....his position did not seem to matter....when the action came around to him he simply declared "all in" about 4 out of evey 5 times it was his turn to act. Now obviously this guy did not hold Aces or Cowboys back to back to back..... but what was he doing? What could he possibly hold that would make him risk all his chips like that every time? It makes sense to me that he was well aware of the tightness of the table and used that knowledge to gain control in the later rounds of the tournament..but still?? We all had about the same amount of chips so it was deffinitaly a risky move on his part if you ask me. His actions did however seem to stir the table as i could immeditaly notice a certain level of increased tension and aggrevation. Everybody just "had" to know what this guy was holding and conviently tried to talk the other players into looking this guy up.. So sitting on the big blind and not being able to stomach another weak lay-down I finally decided to call this maniac with a K2o...ahahha..I know what you guys are thinking now with a holding like that but i just had to call this guy!!!..if for nothing else then at least hopefully it would slow him down a little. Well to my shock the guy turned over KQs!!! (could this have been the quality of his holdings all the time or did i make the wrong move at the wrong time?)... Either way luck was on my side as i hit my deuce on the turn and won the hand. He had me slightly covered and remained in the game..but played like a neutered kitten for the remaining hands.That time I simply got lucky and won the hand when i probaly should not have...but it made me question my play and how i would handle the same situation over and over again...The question therefore would be this...."what holdings would you guys consider strong enough to call away all you chips against a pre flop all in maniac!!!"

[Abbaddabba 0]

Depends on the blind-stack ratio and the payout stcure.

[CanuckMaGuk 0]

well it was a freeze out tournament so the pay out structure was simple..winner takes all. Everyone started with 40 chips and the blinds started at 1-2 and worked theer way up to 10-20. BY the time this guy was going all in the blinds i beleive were 10-20. It was pretty late in the game by this point. So every BB was costing me $20..only to fold to this guys all in's!

[TheCinciKid 0]

K2 is a bad hand to call him with...it's too likely to be dominated. I'd much rather call with 87s, so long as I'm getting 2-1. Or, if you ever get the chance to act before him, you can go all-in yourself with basically any two cards, to pick up the blinds...which it seems is what he's doing.

[CanuckMaGuk 0]

i was sitting to his left so he usually was betting before i was

[Hand_Cracker 0]

i would wait until i had some suited connectors or any two broadway cards, or even Ax, x>4. and any Axs.and whenever you have the button, push push push.he will lay it down.but k2, no way.you got lucky.how did the rest of the tournament turn out?

[CobaltBlue 662]

well it was a freeze out tournament so the pay out structure was simple..winner takes all. Everyone started with 40 chips and the blinds started at 1-2 and worked theer way up to 10-20. BY the time this guy was going all in the blinds i beleive were 10-20. It was pretty late in the game by this point. So every BB was costing me $20..only to fold to this guys all in's!

That's a pretty crappy structure.

[HtotheNootch 0]

Oddly enough he really wasn't playing like a Maniac. If you've read Harrington on Holdem, it actually makes sense.You stated that there were 11 players started with 40 chips. That means that there were 440 chips in play. With four players left and holding a relatively even amount of chips, we'll assume villain has the average 110 chip stack. The blinds are 10/20. So it costs 30 chips a round. His M is less than 4. His effective M is less than 2. Pushing isn't that maniacal if you think about.

[Abbaddabba 0]

well it was a freeze out tournament so the pay out structure was simple..winner takes all. Everyone started with 40 chips and the blinds started at 1-2 and worked theer way up to 10-20. BY the time this guy was going all in the blinds i beleive were 10-20. It was pretty late in the game by this point. So every BB was costing me $20..only to fold to this guys all in's!

Terrible structure. He's not a maniac. Everyone else at the table is too tight. In a winner takes all situation with the blinds that big, if played correctly, there'll be an all in virtually every hand. The suckers at the table are the one's who're blinding out for 1/4 of their stack every 4 or 5 hands.With 120 chips left, you could probably safely fold it - but be prepared to call him down or push with any pair, any ace, or any two broadways in the next few hands.

[jayistheman 0]

Ax, x>4.arbitrary?

[Ebonwoulfe 0]

Yeah, I rather think that he was employing pretty good tourney strategy, as long as he had a hand better than something like Q7 suited every time.You made a bad choice playing with K2 though... I mean, it's dominating nothing, about a 55% favorite at best, and could easily be behind. Better take a stand hands have been listed already. In fact, you probably hand plenty of decent hands to fight back with already - instead, you made a frustration call and his plan had worked to perfection!But, as long as he's exercising the right of first bluff, you're just going to have to find a hand to roll with and play it. I mean, with 30 in the pot preflop and only 440 on the table, it's a crapshoot, plain and simple.

[CanuckMaGuk 0]

I am not following your logic when u say that a King-x is a garbage hand short handed? We were down to 4 players and two folded before the third guy went all in....so its not likely that the other two had very good holdings....So i figured at the very least my King would be live.If you ask me its not a very good game plan to chase flushes and straights with only 2 players...how are the odds high enough to justify that play?? Against a random hand a King anything holds a better chance does'nt it? In this case however your right..he did have another KIng and i was dominated..but thats poker .....

[Davin 0]

K2 is a bad hand to call him with...it's too likely to be dominated. I'd much rather call with 87s, so long as I'm getting 2-1. Or, if you ever get the chance to act before him, you can go all-in yourself with basically any two cards, to pick up the blinds...which it seems is what he's doing.

you'd rather call w/ 8 high than king high? this makes no sense whatsoever.

[CanuckMaGuk 0]

exactly my point!

[No_Neck 0]

the problem with K 2 is that if he has K - 10 you are dominated, at least with 87 suited you have flush strength, straight strength, and hopefully two live cards.

[DrZebra 0]

and hopefully two live cards.

whatever. K2 might not be strong enough to call with, but 87 is just dumb.

[jack24bauer24 0]

I was playing at a brick and mortar freeze-out tournament a few weeks ago and made it to the final 4 out of 11 players. The final 4 held similar chip stacks and it looked like at any moment a break out hand could pop up and turn the tides. Everybody at the table was playing super tight it seemed as there were plenty of pre-flop folds going around the entire game. One interesting event occured however that seemed to change gears for everybody...One individual began what seemed to be a never ending assault of pre-flop "all - in" bets....his position did not seem to matter....when the action came around to him he simply declared "all in" about 4 out of evey 5 times it was his turn to act. Now obviously this guy did not hold Aces or Cowboys back to back to back..... but what was he doing? What could he possibly hold that would make him risk all his chips like that every time? It makes sense to me that he was well aware of the tightness of the table and used that knowledge to gain control in the later rounds of the tournament..but still?? We all had about the same amount of chips so it was deffinitaly a risky move on his part if you ask me. His actions did however seem to stir the table as i could immeditaly notice a certain level of increased tension and aggrevation. Everybody just "had" to know what this guy was holding and conviently tried to talk the other players into looking this guy up.. So sitting on the big blind and not being able to stomach another weak lay-down I finally decided to call this maniac with a K2o...ahahha..I know what you guys are thinking now with a holding like that but i just had to call this guy!!!..if for nothing else then at least hopefully it would slow him down a little. Well to my shock the guy turned over KQs!!! (could this have been the quality of his holdings all the time or did i make the wrong move at the wrong time?)... Either way luck was on my side as i hit my deuce on the turn and won the hand. He had me slightly covered and remained in the game..but played like a neutered kitten for the remaining hands.That time I simply got lucky and won the hand when i probaly should not have...but it made me question my play and how i would handle the same situation over and over again...The question therefore would be this...."what holdings would you guys consider strong enough to call away all you chips against a pre flop all in maniac!!!"

Not K2....are you really that dumb?

[Davin 0]

the problem with K 2 is that if he has K - 10 you are dominated, at least with 87 suited you have flush strength, straight strength, and hopefully two live cards.

YOUR CALLING ALL YOUR CHIPS W/ 8 HIGH. I DONT CARE ABOUT DRAW POSSIBILITIES, YOU'RE STILL CALLING ALL IN F-ING W/ 8 HIGH. IF YOU REALLY DONT UNDERSTAND HOW ABSURD THIS IS, THEN PLEASE, STOP PLAYING POKER. and if you think this is a good play bc gus hansen called esfandiari's all in w/ 8-10, that's bc he was playing for pretty much nothing.

[Dubey 1,035]

the problem with K 2 is that if he has K - 10 you are dominated, at least with 87 suited you have flush strength, straight strength, and hopefully two live cards.

YOUR CALLING ALL YOUR CHIPS W/ 8 HIGH. I DONT CARE ABOUT DRAW POSSIBILITIES, YOU'RE STILL CALLING ALL IN F-ING W/ 8 HIGH. IF YOU REALLY DONT UNDERSTAND HOW ABSURD THIS IS, THEN PLEASE, STOP PLAYING POKER. and if you think this is a good play bc gus hansen called esfandiari's all in w/ 8-10, that's bc he was playing for pretty much nothing.

against a range of his likely holdings. 87s fares a hell of a lot better than K2. Its a pretty simple concept.

[jayboogie 0]

It's really situational as to what you may call with. The blinds in porportion to your stack are important, your stack in proportion to the rest of the table. There's so many things that are situational in tournaments and especially when deciding whether to call an all-in or not. There will be times where KQ, KJ are calling hands and other times where it's an easy muck. In any case, K2 is a terrible hand to call with. You pretty much can't be better than a 3:2 favorite no matter what your opponent has unless it's a 2 with a weaker kicker. It's really simple strategy to use against these players, you wait for a hand and pick off the steal. In the mean time you need to be stealing yourself if the others are willing to give up their blinds without a fight.

[Davin 0]

the problem with K 2 is that if he has K - 10 you are dominated, at least with 87 suited you have flush strength, straight strength, and hopefully two live cards.

YOUR CALLING ALL YOUR CHIPS W/ 8 HIGH. I DONT CARE ABOUT DRAW POSSIBILITIES, YOU'RE STILL CALLING ALL IN F-ING W/ 8 HIGH. IF YOU REALLY DONT UNDERSTAND HOW ABSURD THIS IS, THEN PLEASE, STOP PLAYING POKER. and if you think this is a good play bc gus hansen called esfandiari's all in w/ 8-10, that's bc he was playing for pretty much nothing.

against a range of his likely holdings. 87s fares a hell of a lot better than K2. Its a pretty simple concept.

his range of hands: any two cardsking high > 8 high pf headsupwhy would you ever put your money in the pot knowing that you're most likely behind? it seriously boggles the mind. i dont care about pot odds or sharing cards or whatever. king high may be ahead right now, 8 high most likely isnt. why would you ever call all your chips in a tournament w/ no pot odds knowing that your behind. sweet, you have an 8 high suited connector, nice hand multiway, TERRIBLE headsup for all you money.w/ k high, you are ahead most of the times of two random cards. with 8 high, you're not. i just dont understand why people want to put their money in when they most likely are behind. w/ k2, the only hands your behind on pf are any ace, any king, or a ppw/ 78, the hands your behind on pf are any ace, any king, any queen, any 10 any 9, and any ppthose are 34 more hand combinations that have you beat (out of a total of 110).if villain turned over 10-3, and k2 held up, then hero made a questionable, but good callif villain turned over 10-3, and 78s failed to improve, then everyone would agree that the person who called w/ 78s is a complete fishas a matter of fact, im sorry, but you're a fish as wellBUT THEY WERE SOOOOTED

[wilkinru 0]

2 is usually a dead card, it does not help you any and most of the time it will be dominated (since it dominates nothing).Having live cards important, even AK vs 72o is 66% vs 33%.K2 vs KQ your in the 27%, 73% range.harrignton recommends calling with the top 20-30% of hands.K2 is not

[Dubey 1,035]

the problem with K 2 is that if he has K - 10 you are dominated, at least with 87 suited you have flush strength, straight strength, and hopefully two live cards.

YOUR CALLING ALL YOUR CHIPS W/ 8 HIGH. I DONT CARE ABOUT DRAW POSSIBILITIES, YOU'RE STILL CALLING ALL IN F-ING W/ 8 HIGH. IF YOU REALLY DONT UNDERSTAND HOW ABSURD THIS IS, THEN PLEASE, STOP PLAYING POKER. and if you think this is a good play bc gus hansen called esfandiari's all in w/ 8-10, that's bc he was playing for pretty much nothing.

against a range of his likely holdings. 87s fares a hell of a lot better than K2. Its a pretty simple concept.

his range of hands: any two cardsking high > 8 high pf headsupwhy would you ever put your money in the pot knowing that you're most likely behind? it seriously boggles the mind. i dont care about pot odds or sharing cards or whatever. king high may be ahead right now, 8 high most likely isnt. why would you ever call all your chips in a tournament w/ no pot odds knowing that your behind. sweet, you have an 8 high suited connector, nice hand multiway, TERRIBLE headsup for all you money.w/ k high, you are ahead most of the times of two random cards. with 8 high, you're not. i just dont understand why people want to put their money in when they most likely are behind. w/ k2, the only hands your behind on pf are any ace, any king, or a ppw/ 78, the hands your behind on pf are any ace, any king, any queen, any 10 any 9, and any ppthose are 34 more hand combinations that have you beat (out of a total of 110).if villain turned over 10-3, and k2 held up, then hero made a questionable, but good callif villain turned over 10-3, and 78s failed to improve, then everyone would agree that the person who called w/ 78s is a complete fishas a matter of fact, im sorry, but you're a fish as wellBUT THEY WERE SOOOOTED

your assumption that he is pushing with any 2 cards is probably off base. more likely, he was catching a string of pretty nice cards. ie, K9 KT KJ AX AK 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 99 TT. Realistically, most of the time here, your K2 has a better than 50% chance of being dominated. 87s is only going to be dominated by 77 and up, and A7, A8. Also, keep in mind that 87s is the best possible (undercard) hand to have to crack QQ-AA. I wouldn't be thrilled to get my chips in with 8 high, but I'd choose it a hell of a lot faster than K2.

[Abbaddabba 0]

Realistically, most of the time here, your K2 has a better than 50% chance of being dominated

It's interesting that your range of hands for the villain conveniently excludes all the hands that he's actually leading.It's safe to say that any two broadway is in his range, which include QJ, 10j and 10/Q. Also, most aces dont have him dominated. They're simply favorites.K2off doesnt beat an average hand that he's likely pushing with. The question is how large are the blinds relative to the action. Because if they're extremely large, it suddenly means his range of possible hands is widened significantly (and it also means that, in the bb, the hero is more pot commited than he would be in the blinds were low).

harrignton recommends calling with the top 20-30% of hands. K2 is not

Harrington wasn't specifically talking about this exact situation. Your read, the size of the blinds and the payout structures are extremely important.

[TraptSteve 0]

the problem with K 2 is that if he has K - 10 you are dominated, at least with 87 suited you have flush strength, straight strength, and hopefully two live cards.

YOUR CALLING ALL YOUR CHIPS W/ 8 HIGH. I DONT CARE ABOUT DRAW POSSIBILITIES, YOU'RE STILL CALLING ALL IN F-ING W/ 8 HIGH. IF YOU REALLY DONT UNDERSTAND HOW ABSURD THIS IS, THEN PLEASE, STOP PLAYING POKER. and if you think this is a good play bc gus hansen called esfandiari's all in w/ 8-10, that's bc he was playing for pretty much nothing.

I think there were 2 factors in him calling:1. He had antonio on a small pair or high cards, which wouldn't make Gus much of a dog2. He was making an advertising play in a televised freeroll tournament. I really think it is this reason above all else.