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

[Jimulacrum]

Also, and I can't emphasize this enough, no-limit Texas Hold'em is a terrible choice for a friendly neighborhood game. Tournament format is slightly less bad, but it will still have the same general effects over time.

Friendly neighborhood games thrive on limit poker. And playing fixed-limit solves so many of the problems you see in NLHE games: players busting in the first few hands, folks losing their rent money in a night, maniacs and LAGs running over the game, perceptions of cheating or impropriety, the game becoming too serious, etc.

Perhaps most importantly, it helps the money circulate better. Your little neighborhood poker economy has a small market cap. Playing a game like NLHE will quickly separate the fish from their funds. Playing limit will make sure pretty much everyone has an occasional good night, and everyone will have money to play with from week to week.

I know, I know, people cry and moan about not being able to make big bets, but most of them don't know what's good for them. It's up to you as host to curate the game. Sometimes all you can do is a small step at a time. Those small steps can lead to big changes, though.

 

[Kain8]

Also, and I can't emphasize this enough, no-limit Texas Hold'em is a terrible choice for a friendly neighborhood game. Tournament format is slightly less bad, but it will still have the same general effects over time.

Friendly neighborhood games thrive on limit poker. And playing fixed-limit solves so many of the problems you see in NLHE games: players busting in the first few hands, folks losing their rent money in a night, maniacs and LAGs running over the game, perceptions of cheating or impropriety, the game becoming too serious, etc.

Perhaps most importantly, it helps the money circulate better. Your little neighborhood poker economy has a small market cap. Playing a game like NLHE will quickly separate the fish from their funds. Playing limit will make sure pretty much everyone has an occasional good night, and everyone will have money to play with from week to week.

I know, I know, people cry and moan about not being able to make big bets, but most of them don't know what's good for them. It's up to you as host to curate the game. Sometimes all you can do is a small step at a time. Those small steps can lead to big changes, though.

Can we get this engraved into some sort of giant poker monolith for all to see?

 

[Gobbs]

Also, and I can't emphasize this enough, no-limit Texas Hold'em is a terrible choice for a friendly neighborhood game. Tournament format is slightly less bad, but it will still have the same general effects over time.

Does this mean the same people I've played NLHE tournaments with for the past ten years on an almost monthly basis are not really my friends? Does this mean the half that go home when we play any other game are my friends?

 

[Jimulacrum]

Does this mean the same people I've played NLHE tournaments with for the past ten years on an almost monthly basis are not really my friends? Does this mean the half that go home when we play any other game are my friends?

Obviously.

 

[dkersey]

Yeah, if tourneys are a no-go because of logistics, then the hard cap is an outstanding idea.

That's what I did when starting a cash game years ago from my mostly-tourney-only player base. We started playing .25/.25 with a $20 cap, worked our way up to .25/.50 $50 max, and now (years later) my game is usually .25/.50 $100 max. I allow $20 minimum buys, so casual/new players can still jump in for $20 at a time and stay in their comfort zone.

I haven't ruled out tourneys. I just felt the cash games made it more flexible, such as come early or late, or leave early or late, as opposed to tourneys where you need to show up at a certain time and you leave when you are busted. You are probably right that the tourneys are a better fit for this group for now, and perhaps a cash group will materialize over time.

So putting a hard cap and lowering buyins might solve the "pucker" factor, and put the social/fun back in the game. It may also reduce the attractiveness of the game to the Maniac as well. Great idea! I'm going to give it a shot. If attendance is down, then I'll go back to tourneys for the group.

Thanks for all the input!

 

[TheOctagon]

I still don't know why people cringe at limit games. It's such a weird paradox: players who know the game know why limit is healthier for a low limit inexperienced crew, but that same inexperienced crew cries about not being able to jam with the nuts because, why? I still haven't heard a legitimate reason why you shouldn't *try* limit poker once in a while. "Danger" is a bad reason to want to play no limit hold em (aside from it being a dry boring affair after 4 hours) - I always thought winning and outplaying your opponent was the name of the game.

Edit: I've also had people come to my game and complain about dealer's choice rotations because "Why should I be forced to play a game that I don't know? Everybody else has a leg up if I'm playing a game I haven't beat yet." Listen, hot shot, nobody's "beaten" 2-7 triple draw or badugi. Everybody here is just as green as you when it comes to those games. If you don't love it, fold your 75 cents and wait until NLHE comes back around so we can all fold our 75 cents back to you while we wait to call PLO8s. /rant

 

[Jimulacrum]

I still don't know why people cringe at limit games. It's such a weird paradox: players who know the game know why limit is healthier for a low limit inexperienced crew, but that same inexperienced crew cries about not being able to jam with the nuts because, why? I still haven't heard a legitimate reason why you shouldn't *try* limit poker once in a while. "Danger" is a bad reason to want to play no limit hold em (aside from it being a dry boring affair after 4 hours) - I always thought winning and outplaying your opponent was the name of the game.

Edit: I've also had people come to my game and complain about dealer's choice rotations because "Why should I be forced to play a game that I don't know? Everybody else has a leg up if I'm playing a game I haven't beat yet." Listen, hot shot, nobody's "beaten" 2-7 triple draw or badugi. Everybody here is just as green as you when it comes to those games. If you don't love it, fold your 75 cents and wait until NLHE comes back around so we can all fold our 75 cents back to you while we wait to call PLO8s. /rant

It's pretty much the same as the reasoning behind why millions of people dump billions of dollars into Powerball et al, but those same people would probably scoff at a lottery bet that's EV+ but has modest payouts. They like the idea of being able to win big all at once, even if it's improbable. Of course, if they'd suck it up and try limit poker, they'd get to see the massive pots it produces and would quickly get over this hangup, but we can only hope.

And your second paragraph is another reason. A lot of people feel like they "know" NLHE, even if they objectively suck at it. They've seen it on TV, they've maybe seen starting-hand charts or even read a book, and it puts the game in their comfort zone. It's a fair point, I guess. I obviously don't agree with it, but it's probably the biggest hurdle to getting most people to try out other variants. Pineapple can be a good stepping stone for that reason, or even a limit Hold'em/Omaha rotation.

 

[Darson]

I was playing online last night on a table with two maniacs. Their standard move is to shove after the flop. I didn't notice this at first and lost two buy-ins (one because I accidentally clicked call instead of fold). Bought in again and played super tight. Picked up JJ, flop was xxJ, shoved (because I knew one of those maniacs would shove so I wanted to shove first), first maniac folds, second calls. Turn was a 10 and river a 9. Maniac tables KQ for the straight and busts me again.

Yes maniacs can be fun but it's damn annoying when the cards go their way. I had to take a break and calm down to avoid going on tilt.

 

[Mojo1312]

It's pretty much the same as the reasoning behind why millions of people dump billions of dollars into Powerball et al, but those same people would probably scoff at a lottery bet that's EV+ but has modest payouts. They like the idea of being able to win big all at once, even if it's improbable. Of course, if they'd suck it up and try limit poker, they'd get to see the massive pots it produces and would quickly get over this hangup, but we can only hope.

Explains why $20 buy-in games are so popular. Players can fire multiple bullets with the hope of tripling up in one hand.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Explains why $20 buy-in games are so popular. Players can fire multiple bullets with the hope of tripling up in one hand.

Yes. Lose $20, lose $20, lose $20, rebuy one more time and triple up. It almost feels like a win!

 

[glom]

Play .05/.10 with a $20 hard cap. Stakes are small enough to allow multiple rebuys and may even make people comfortable enough to play the games from @abby99 mixed game cards.

 

[Anthony Martino]

I love maniacs when they lose to me and hate them when they win against me.

I was playing a local poker room 1/2 NL which is capped at $200. A kid sat down waiting for a 2/5 seat and proceeded every hand to raise preflop to $100 with the willingness to call a shove for his stack or to shove or call any shove on any flop, without looking at his cards. He wanted to gamble and wanted everyone to think he was some baller.

He dumped about a grand into our game before he got his 2/5 seat (where he played much less maniacal)

I waited patiently and when he raised to $100 I shoved my stack with AQ, a drunk player wound up calling off with AT and the maniac with QJ so I had them both crushed. Until the 10 on the flop gave the drunk the $600 pot and he started shouting BINGOOOOOO!

When the maniac left the drunk continued to donk it up, typically raising anywhere from $30-60 preflop.

Eventually I got it in really good against him on a 68T flop when he shoved with A5 (no flush draw) and I called with 99. Of course the Ace spikes the turn and he wins a $500 pot.

Somehow that session I only managed to lose $200, but man I had to battle back. The drunk picked up KK when his buddy had QQ and got paid. He got another player who was frustrated to barrel off with pocket 7's on the river with two overcards when the drunk had T4 and had hit two pair.

By the end of the night the drunk was leaving with over 2 grand in front of him, and I was -$200. It sure was frustrating to not have won Oprah money at that point, but that's the variance of playing this game in the short term.

 

[TheOctagon]

A lot of people feel like they "know" NLHE, even if they objectively suck at it.

The truth of all truths. Familiarity breeds routine. "Knowing" a game doesn't mean you're anything more than familiar with it. But, sure, keep insisting we play NLHE so you can leave bitter and confused after stacking off your two pair to the backdoor flush suckout. :zzz:

 

[CamoCladWarrior]

In addition if you think this maniac is running regular players off you could always just not invite the maniac.

 

[dkersey]

In addition if you think this maniac is running regular players off you could always just not invite the maniac.

Right, I would only do that as a last resort.

 

[Mike Wells]

If you think it's taking the play out of a friendly small stakes home game...play limit...or even pot limit.
If you play poker to make money...which I definitely do. Please give me a whole table of maniacs. It's almost impossible for me to not win.
Even better...hey guys...wanna play some Omaha?

 

[dkersey]

Update about my local maniac...

Background: I am trying to build a local semi-social low stakes cash game, and I fear the Maniac ruining it...and then a real Maniac showed up.

While my fear about the maniac scaring away players for my cash game is real, this is not true for the same group of people for a tournament. Here is what happened:

Single table, 7 players, 10K stacks, unlimited rebuys 1st 2 hours, $40/each. The maniac immediately went crazy, and shoved, and lost,rebuy! Over the next 2 hours, he continued this play, and rebought a total of 4 times, for 5 total buyins. Over those same 2 hours, the other people realized how big the prize pool was going to be, and most of them busted and rebought once. I had a total of 16 buyins (5 being the Maniacs) for 7 people. Paid top 2 places, so nice money for 1st! He played less meniacial once the rebuy period was over but still very aggressive.

In the end, he got 3rd ($0), and here is the hand he busted on. Its late, blinds 4k/8K. He was button. Pot raised preflop to 2X BB by him, SB (me) folded, BB called. Flop AKQx, check, check. Turn is 4x, check, check. River is 6x, check, Maniac bets min amount, BB raises an amount to put Maniac all-in. Maniac tanks, then calls. BB turns over JT for a flopped broadway straight! He mucks, thanks everyone and walks out.

For tournaments, they loved him and want him back. For cash, not so much...

 

[glom]

Your players seem very results oriented.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Your players seem very results oriented.

Like most casual players.

 

[Mojo1312]

Maniacs definitely make the game more enjoyable and memorable. Who doesn't like to watch a movie where the Hero doesn't back down when outnumbered? Face it, we admire those foolhardy bastards on the silver screen. Val Kilmer as Doc Holiday in Tombstone. Tom Cruise as Nathan Algren in the Last Samurai, or Emilio Estevez as Billy the Kid in Young Guns. They provide moments of great cinematic entertainment.

We admire their boldness and fearlessness. The foolhardy way in which they flirt with death. "I will be your Huckleberry." Such a moment took place last night at the final table with Dirty Dan. We are down to six out of a field of 15. Dirty Dan thinks it is a good idea to bump it up with J,8 off-suit, which is a hell of a lot better than two suited cards, because as Dan likes to say "You are playing to two potential flush draws."

Folds around to the player on my right who re-raises. Folds back to Dirty Dan, who undaunted, goes all-in. The other player snap calls and asks "What do you got?" before flipping over pocket Aces. Dirty Dan turns over his cards. His opponent stands up and leans over the table, apparently to make sure that his eyes were not deceiving him. "You shoved with J,8!?" "Why would you do that?" he asks. Dirty Dan, who is unfazed - and is still sitting down, exclaims: "Because that is the winner." To which the other player simply laughs. Dirty Dan, while maintaining eye contact, reacts by telling him unflinchingly "I am going to take your chips." Once again, the other player with his pocket aces laughs in disbelief.

The flop: 10,x,x. The turn card is a nine, giving Dirty Dan an OESD. The river card -- a seven. The other player, mouth agape, is stunned. Dirty Dan reaches out and in one graceful sweep pulls in the chips. Calmly stating, what should have been obvious to all from the beginning: "I told you I was going to take your chips."

I am hoping Dirty Dan will be there next week. I always enjoy a good sequel.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

My maniac bad beat story from last week (flop shove getting snapped off by a 5-high flush draw that gets there) just doesn't hold a candle to Mojo's story.

 

[Highli99]

Maniacs definitely make the game more enjoyable and memorable. Who doesn't like to watch a movie where the Hero doesn't back down when outnumbered? Face it, we admire those foolhardy bastards on the silver screen. Val Kilmer as Doc Holiday in Tombstone. Tom Cruise as Nathan Algren in the Last Samurai, or Emilio Estevez as Billy the Kid in Young Guns. They provide moments of great cinematic entertainment.

We admire their boldness and fearlessness. The foolhardy way in which they flirt with death. "I will be your Huckleberry." Such a moment took place last night at the final table with Dirty Dan. We are down to six out of a field of 15. Dirty Dan thinks it is a good idea to bump it up with J,8 off-suit, which is a hell of a lot better than two suited cards, because as Dan likes to say "You are playing to two potential flush draws."

Folds around to the player on my right who re-raises. Folds back to Dirty Dan, who undaunted, goes all-in. The other player snap calls and asks "What do you got?" before flipping over pocket Aces. Dirty Dan turns over his cards. His opponent stands up and leans over the table, apparently to make sure that his eyes were not deceiving him. "You shoved with J,8!?" "Why would you do that?" he asks. Dirty Dan, who is unfazed - and is still sitting down, exclaims: "Because that is the winner." To which the other player simply laughs. Dirty Dan, while maintaining eye contact, reacts by telling him unflinchingly "I am going to take your chips." Once again, the other player with his pocket aces laughs in disbelief.

The flop: 10,x,x. The turn card is a nine, giving Dirty Dan an OESD. The river card -- a seven. The other player, mouth agape, is stunned. Dirty Dan reaches out and in one graceful sweep pulls in the chips. Calmly stating, what should have been obvious to all from the beginning: "I told you I was going to take your chips."

I am hoping Dirty Dan will be there next week. I always enjoy a good sequel.

J8 is maniac favorite. Prob a top 5 favorite to play.

 

[CndWrist]

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?

Personally, I’d love a maniac at every game. He would be easily grabbed with a small adjustment to you strategy. Added bonus is that he would most likely push others out of their comfort zone causing them to play wrongly and make mistakes against you. Great for the game.

 

[Mojo1312]

-"Because that is the winner." -

Another favorite Dirty Dan quote from Wednesday night's game. (Upon re-buying back in for the second time)

-"It usually takes three buy-ins for me to warm up."

 

[Anthony Martino]

Had a guy in a local tournament calling EVERYTHING. Called a UTG raiser with 25 offsuit from EP, flopped gin on an A34 board, gets action from a kid with A8 and then an 8 on the turn dooms that guy to playing for stacks (fwiw I had folded pocket 3's pre and most certainly would've gotten stacked)

 

[glom]

I used to play in an uncapped .05/.10 game. I was the biggest winner in the game. I was also the maniac. My record buy ins for a single night was 2600bbs.

 

[74suited]

I think they're bad for the home game. Most home games are pretty friendly, and until you've been playing together for years and are all pretty decent players, the maniac is likely to scare off players or if nothing else make the game too volatile for the casual player who's just there to relax and have a good time. You never want to scare people away or do anything that will discourage someone from returning. Anywhere else, the maniac is awesome for the game, loosens everyone up!

 

[Beakertwang]

I used to play in an uncapped .05/.10 game. I was the biggest winner in the game. I was also the maniac. My record buy ins for a single night was 2600bbs.

Wait...you bought in for $260 in a 5¢/10¢ game?!