Do you think “maniacs” ruin games? (1 Viewer)

[Pesto628]

I occasionally have a game/attend a game which plays pretty soft. Without trying to toot my own horn, I’m probably the only one who has a more than basic understanding of solid strategy since I play online (not saying I’m any good though). Most people play super loose and will bet/call down whenever they get the smallest piece of the board but we’ve recently been adding more players who have an idea of what to do. Additionally, there is one player who after 45 min just goes completely berserk and will start shoving after the flop and turn whenever he has some piece of it. Obviously this is a terrible losing strategy, but I also find it takes a lot of skill out of the game, increases variance and basically forces you to wait until you hit a solid hand to call him down which is kind of boring in my opinion.

I’m curious if anyone else has experienced this with a regular at their game and how/if they did something about it. Am I being a baby about receiving the precious gift of someone who is practically giving away their money or is my greivance warranted and should I maybe consider seeking out more skilled players to play with?

 

[Mr Tree]

Maniacs are extremely profitable to play against but volatile. Long term you should love them but understand you will occasionally be stabbed in the kidneys by them. Just part of the game really.

 

[Highli99]

maniacs are really good for games. If they are tilting your table then the +EV is even higher because they will make otherwise good players play badly. The dynamics between maniacs and nits is also high entertainment.

 

[Coyote]

In a public room among strangers, maniacs are a blessing to the good, solid, well-read and experienced player who can also truly afford the given stakes.

For home games, where social relations and behaviour among players are of value, and where there should be care for the well-being of even the weakest social players, to make sure the game survives mid/long-term, anti-maniac rules are required.
I could think of max buy-in of no more than 120-125BB (and min buy-in of no less than 80BB), total night cap of 500-600BB per player, all games PL pre-flop and NL post-flop.

 

[Pesto628]

I should mention that this question is for home games only

 

[CraigT78]

Please send this player my email address. He’s welcome at my game!

Seriously though - yes, he’s bad for your game. As you described yours is a new game, inexperienced players who are probably there more for the social aspect. Until their games get better, he’s going to cause people to stop coming. At the end of the day this will work it’s self out - your game will change and attract better players. If that’s not what you want, you might need to have a discussion with the maniac. If you want to develop a solid game, let it be.

 

[bivey]

Maniacs are extremely profitable to play against but volatile. Long term you should love them but understand you will occasionally be stabbed in the kidneys by them. Just part of the game really.

You should know, if ever a tree were a maniac.

 

[Mr Tree]

You should know, if ever a tree were a maniac.

I am wounded Bert. Wounded!

I think you’re still just bitter that I bluffed you out of a hand I didn’t play without betting.

 

[UKS]

Change the game to Pot Limit.

I played Pot Limit HE in Dublin for a while - It was very enjoyable!

(They changed eventually to NL)

 

[Beakertwang]

If the maniac turns a bunch of hands into bingo, the game just isn’t as much fun. As much as I like winning money, I’d rather be outplayed by a buddy and lose some than just take a bunch of money from someone who want some to throw big chips in the middle.

And then there’s the hands where the maniac sucks out and acts like he’s a poker pro.

 

[saskbull]

if it’s a social game, bad. if it’s a game where the money isn’t an issue for anyone it’s good. i don’t like it, i just wait them out which is boring. we had a guy that would bet 200 into a 12 $ pot post flop, if you raised, he was shoving. routinely double straddle his entire stack. i believe 1350 was the biggest. easy to beat and send home, but lost many regulars that were there to have fun.takes the fun out of the game

 

[Lemonzest]

Think about the question though....

Do players betting with bad hands ruin games?! Because that is what a maniac is. Sure sometime they have it but the nature of poker is usually you don't have a good hand...

Just fold and wait until you are ready to make a stand.

A few years ago in Vegas I would be in the poker room at PH and every night there was this drunk Irish guy with huge stacks in front of him. We were playing 1/2 and the guy would each night have around 800- 1k behind. He was often wasted by around 10 PM and be all in seemingly every hand he was in. It certainly changed the dynamic but he was easy to play against and invariably by the end of the night he would be broke or very close to it.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

I love a bad maniac at the table. I have to put my big boy pants on and be prepared to play a big pot with a not-so-big hand. It's high variance but also high EV.

That said, a LOT of my home game players do not want this guy at the table. He makes it difficult for people to play, he sucks out a lot (because he's often putting his stack in with the worse hand), and he makes the game less fun for more casual players.

There are a few options you could try:

• Be upfront with the player. Explain that his style of play may scare off other players, and ask him to tone it down.
• Have a "strat" talk with him. Let him know that shoving any piece will win him some small pots but lose him some big ones.
• Remove him from the invite list. This is very harsh and something I would save as a last resort, but if it's the difference between losing one player and losing the game, you may have to consider it.

 

[manamongkids]

@MatB

 

[Beakertwang]

Deleted. (Posted in the wrong thread, somehow.)

 

[Vice]

Maniacs and players who always stay on a draw, no matter the bet or difficulty in making their hand, are a blessing to my poker bankroll. Sometimes however, they have nights where they hit everything and that's pretty frustrating because we all know they are not playing good poker strategy.

 

[detroitdad]

@MatB

LOL

I was about to post the same damn thing! Well played sir.

 

[bivey]

I am wounded Bert. Wounded!

I think you’re still just bitter that I bluffed you out of a hand I didn’t play without betting.

That was the best bluff evah! EV = AV = $0. Everybody has a good laugh and a better story. And I will have my revenge. (And now you know I pay attention. And you know that I know that you know.) aaaaaaand don’t forget I felted you about an hour later.

 

[davin]

maniacs are really good for games. If they are tilting your table then the +EV is even higher because they will make otherwise good players play badly. The dynamics between maniacs and nits is also high entertainment.

Well said,

 

[JustinInMN]

Maniacs are good for the game, unless you are playing scared money. Profit has to come from somewhere.

 

[abby99]

Maniacs are good for the game, unless they're not. It depends on the specific group of players and what type of game they want to play.

 

[MatB]

I feel that Super maniacs behavior (all in pre flop. post flop. most of the time) is normally a short lived strategy. they either double/ triple up in short time, or they bust a few times and then lick wounds. IF other players cant ride out that wave then... i don't know. *shrug*
I dont think a super maniac can keep up that strategy for an extended period of time.

On the other end of the spectrum is the player that buys in for the minimum, folds 85-95% of their hands and will milk the buy-in for an hour or 2.
This player while, 'playing the game' and not dictating others behavior (other than ensuring they get a call when they bet) can be more of a frustrating payer to play with, not tilting, but would probably drive better players away more frequently than a maniac.

We should all welcome the maniac... in fact, we should celebrate the maniac ! streets should be named after them. Pot roast feasts should be eaten in their honor.

 

[Mojo1312]

should I maybe consider seeking out more skilled players to play with?

Always.

 

[Old State]

Maniacs are good for a game comprised of somewhat experienced players or better. The OPs game doesn’t sound like that, and in that case I would say they are bad.

I have been trying to cultivate new cash players from my childhood friends and some neighbors for the last couple years. Guys that only play $10-20 tournaments and have barely understand basic strategy. I’d rather cancel a game than fill seats with any of my poker friends that play even close to maniacal.

 

[glom]

Unskilled maniacs are a welcome addition to any game imo. Skilled maniacs are a force to be reckoned with and can be terrifying.

If you are having problems beating this game, you should not go looking for a better group of players. If you want to beat tougher games, then you should.

 

[Jimulacrum]

As others have said, it depends on the game texture. Some games can handle a maniac and some can't.

What I find laughable is this common misconception that what a game needs is more skilled players instead of the maniac. Essentially no poker game in the history of playing cards has ever needed more skilled players.

You'd see this pretty plainly if, in place of the poorly playing maniac, you were to get a highly skilled LAG. Especially in a game where people cry about someone giving away his money like this maniac, a skilled LAG would eat everyone for breakfast.

What it seems like people really want when they clamor for "better" players is more timid and predictable players. More off-the-shelf TAGs and weak-passive types who don't raise "too much." And it's fine if that's what they want, but it's silly to conflate that with skill.

 

[Mojo1312]

What it seems like people really want when they clamor for "better" players is more timid and predictable players. More off-the-shelf TAGs and weak-passive types who don't raise "too much." And it's fine if that's what they want, but it's silly to conflate that with skill.

Like going all in blind and busting out three consecutive times?

Maniac's give you memorable moments. I was down to $110 playing $1/$2 NLHE against a familiar Maniac who 75% of the time was raising $12 to $14 pre-flop. I decided I was going to move all-in with my first decent hand. I caught pocket seven's. Sure enough, he popped it to $14 from middle position. I moved all-in from the cut-off. The action folded around to him. $96 to call. He looked at me and asked what I had. I didn't bother to respond. He asked if I had suited cards. I got cute and said no, but they were twins. He mulled this piece of information over for a few seconds and called.

I smiled ear to ear when he flipped over 3D,7D. I didn't expect to get so lucky. The flop came 4,5,x. No help arrived on the turn. The dealer burned a card and flipped over a six on the river.

Out of all of the players I have had the pleasure of playing cards with, he is one who I will always remember. I hope to see him again at the poker table. He provided great action and great fun. Win or lose.

 

[JustinInMN]

What it seems like people really want when they clamor for "better" players is more timid and predictable players. More off-the-shelf TAGs and weak-passive types who don't raise "too much." And it's fine if that's what they want, but it's silly to conflate that with skill.

^ - This is the best explanation I have ever read.

<Rant>
When people complain that "they never fold" I always hear "they won't let me bully them."

The beauty of poker is there are many strategies and may paths to victory and defeat. For every strategy there is a counter-strategy. The more strategies you know the better player you are. But some people saw one big raise push a guy off the best hand once on TV and don't want to learn anything else. Instead they are doomed to just complain they can't handle certain opponents.
</Rant>

 

[detroitdad]

Like going all in blind and busting out three consecutive times?

This is easy to play against. It might not be the most "fun", but it is easy.

We have a guy that occasionally gets ultra aggressive. When that happens I try to see a lot of flops with him. When I hit the flop I hammer the shit out of the pot. Most of the time its successful.

 

[slisk250]

We miss the lunatic that used to frequent my NLHE game and we have buy in/rebuy caps. At first people were afraid of him until they saw how a couple of us handled him...and know know the story of why he doesn’t come back. Money doesn’t grow on trees.