Quiz of the Week #3

» QUIZ

He's a maniac...

from MiiWiin

In the last two editions, fixed-limit-players were served. Today, no-limit-players will be served. It is the same
format as usual: You will find a couple of multiple-choice questions in the course of this article. Take
down your answers and compare them with the solutions at the end of the article and the points table on the
second page. The evaluation of the questions can be found on the third
page.

About the situation

We have found a relatively good shorthanded table
on NL100 with a couple of fishes on it, but we have to put up with a
known maniac who has position on us.

We have a couple of stats about the maniac from our database:
VPIP: 36
PFR: 32
AF: 4,1
WTS: 25
Hands: 817

The first few of hands didn't go too well
where we couldn't hit anything and had to give up our hands against these
seemingly worse players. After the first 50 hands, the maniac had
already 3bet three times. We had to fold every time.

The hand is over. Hero finally lost the hand and didn't present himself
very well. He can fold the next couple of hands. A little later a
playable hand arises.

» QUIZ

Solutions

Assignment 1.1.

a) Fold (0 Points)
b) Limp (1 Points)
c) Raise (3 Points)

Folding with jacks is obviously not an option. A limp would be
possible if hero is thinking about limp/raising or slowplaying his
jacks
at all if he doesn't want to chase away any worse hands. However, the
jacks aren't the strongest hand. A standard raise should be made by
default.

Assignment 1.2.

a) Fold (0 Points)
b) Call (2 Points)
c) 3-bet (3 Points)

Hero just limped and got raised, basically just as expected. A fold is
still not an option. In theory a call is possible if hero is prepared
to go broke on certain boards. However, against the range of such an
aggressive player this would be too weak. If hero just limps preflop,
his line should be limp/3-bet.

Assignment 1.3.

a) Fold (0 Points)
b) Call ( 2 Points)
c) 4-bet (3 Points)

Needless to say the maniac raises. We know that we are ahead against his range on average. We should therefore 4-bet.

A call would cause the same problems as in assignment 1.2 where we
would have to go broke on certain boards. However any overcard would be
bad for us. Furthermore we would have to play out of position. As we
think that we have a good postflop game, a call would be justifiable to
avoid chasing worse hands away. In this situation a fold is out of the question against such an opponent.

Assignment 1.4.

a) check/fold (0 Points)
b) check/call (3 Points)
c) check/raise (2 Points)
d) donkbet/fold (0 Points)
e) donkbet/push (2 Points)

Hero just called preflop and is now playing out of position on a
Q-high-board. Hero knows about the range of villain, who could be
holding a wide range of hands. Any pocket pair, many aces and also many
suited connectors are within his range.

Check/folding in this position is therefore not possible. Donking just
to fold to his raise makes even less sense. Villain is very aggressive
and likes to bluff. We would take this option away from him if we bet
ourselves. We would change our hand into a purebluff, which is
absolutely wrong in this situation.

If we assume that villain is capable of bluffraising, a donkbet/push
would definitely be an option. It is clear though that we would be beat
a lot of the time in that scenario.

The only option left would be to check at first. In most cases,
villain will bet, leaving us with two options as a fold is still out of
the question.

check/call:

If we play check/call we will call the hand down having the "way
ahead/way behind" principle in mind. We will get the most value from
weaker hands and we'll lose the least against stronger hands. It is
very likely too that villain barrels twice with a pocket pair to make
us fold any better hands.

check/raise:

A check/raise wouldn't be that profitable. Though we could absolutely
put villain on a hand like Ax with which he would have a few outs
against us. If an ace or a king hits on the turn, the situation would
become ticklish, because on a board with two overcards we would have to
question the strength of our hand even against an opponent like this
one is. By checkraising, we commit ourselves, but also protect our hand,
which is mostly still the best hand. In turn we would get less value
from weaker hands or respectively any bluff-hands.

Assignment 1.5.

a) check/fold (3 Points)
b) check/call (1 Points)
c) check/raise (0 Points)
d) donkbet/fold (1 Points)
e) donkbet/push (0 Points)

Hero only checked on the flop and the turn brings a scarecard. It is
very strange though, that a super aggressive player like villain checks
behind on the flop. He either has a monster or nothing at all.

Therefore a donkbet makes little sense. Any weaker hand would probably
fold and any stronger hand would raise. Due to this, the option
donkbet/push is out of the question. After this turncard, we can be
sure to be beat if he raises. Donkbet/fold therefore gains a little in
significance because we might be able to take down the pot straight
away which wouldn't be the worst thing. We would certainly convert our
hand into a bluff and disregard its showdown-value though.

Before we bet, we should contemplate whether a check could still be
the best alternative. It is obvious that our hand has lost a lot of
strength due to the second overcard. Villain could easily be holding an
ace or a queen with which he is now trying to control the size of the
pot.

Check/fold would be the best alternative in this situation, however we
do believe that villain is capable of a delayed conti-bluffbet on the
turn. Therefore a check/call would definitely be possible too.

A checkraise would be a very aggressive play, but we have to take into
account that a check/call creates a very large pot. Would we be able to
play check/fold on the river? We have to assume that only stronger hands
would call our checkraise. This alternative would be
overplayed in this situation.

Assignment 2.1.

a) Fold (0 Points)
b) Limp (0 Points)
c) Raise (2 Points)

We surely know of our tough table-position, but we cant simply fold AQ.
A limp wouldn't make much sense either because a limpraise from UTG
with AQ would be quite overplayed. We make a standard raise.

Assignment 2.2.

a) Fold (1 Points)
b) Call (2 Points)
c) 4-bet (2 Points)

After the maniac three bet again, the unknown big blind calls as well.
A call would be acceptable due to the odds, but we would have to play
in the sandwich against two villains and could already be dominated.

I rarely see hero facing a large pot. A 4-bet would be possible though.
We think that we are ahead against the range of the maniac; the big
blind can call with a lot of hands against which we will be ahead most
of the time. The possibility of the big blind trying to trap us with a
strong hand is there as well. Furthermore we don't have to play for a
whole stack with a hand like AQ preflop. A fold would also be possible
even though this would be a little weak in this situation.

Assignment 2.3.

a) Fold (1 Points)
b) Call (1 Points)
c) Raise (3 Points)

Hero only called in the sandwich position and didn't hit the board.
Nevertheless he is holding two overcards as well as a double bellybuster. The big
blind cold called a 3-bet preflop and now donks into us. He could be
holding a wide range of cards, maybe a weak toppair, a draw (against
which we are ahead right now) or even a pure bluff. We could probably
isolate the big blind with a raise because the maniac would have to
fold a lot of hands. We create a lot of foldequitey by doing this and
still have 8-14 outs.

A call would also be possible, but we would have a tough decision on
the turn if we don't improve. Furthermore we give the maniac the option to push on
the flop which wouldn't improve our situation at all. The most passive
alternative would be to fold, but then we would have to question
ourselves as to why we are playing hands like this one against these
opponents.

» QUIZ

Analysis

You are a fixed limit player.

You have a couple of problems playing against very aggressive
players. You sometimes overplay your hand and sometimes fold to
quickly. Finding the right balance is not easy and you should avoid
these situations in case of any doubt to find another table until you
are more confident.

You don't have any problem to take on a maniac, but you are very unsure
in some situations. You shouldn't underestimate this style of play,
which is affected by variance a lot. Maybe you should abstain from these
borderline decisions and concentrate more on the fishes. Nobody thinks bad of you
if you play a little weak against a maniac.

You know how to use reads and how to defend yourself against a maniac.
You don't let others bluff you out of the hand too often, but you don't go broke
gratuitous either. If you can stand up to a maniac, there is nothing in
the way to bleed the fishes white.