Take a tour. Enjoy some free sample content.

How it works

Free Video: CLP Video No. 287: Home Game Bart Reviews His Splashy At $1-$3 Deep Part 2

Free Podcast: CLP Podcast No. 54: Time Warp And Turn Value
New to Crush Live Poker?

CrushLivePoker Video No. 442: TCH 1-3 with a maniac at the table (part 2)

CLP_CraigCLP_Craig Posts: 783Administrator
This TCH 1-3 game is a lesson every hand. Tuck continues to analyze the 1-3 game with a maniac at it. How do players adjust? How should you? What kind of Maniac is this one?



  • Steveo76Steveo76 Posts: 161Subscriber

    Good work again on this one @DavidTuchman ! Apart from the excellent break down of this particular maniac type, I also appreciated your comments on the KsQs hand where 'E' could have taken a more aggressive action. Also the KsJs hand where the straddle just called instead of putting in the raise. If ever there was a moment that defined what I needed to do to climb the stakes, that was it. And then on the turn to pull the trigger on a c/r recognising villain weakness was a cool observation too. I've been working in this kind of bet lately to make my bets look polorizing and was wondering if I was falling into Fancy Play Syndrome. But both you here and Bart too in recent podcasts have shown that it can be an effective strategy.



  • ChaseSpellChaseSpell Posts: 183Subscriber
    Thanks for the video David!

    Hand 2 that's me in the BB and I have a few thoughts in response:

    3-bet pre is totally reasonable. From what I remember I decided to call mostly because of image considerations and dynamics with Bernie (not wanting to face a 4b! from Bernie in this spot), and also after calling I'll have the best relative-position by being the last player to act after Bernie acts. But you have to draw the line somewhere. I suspect with KQs I would have virtually always 3b! to something like $115 and planned to stack off facing a jam from Bernie.

    It's helpful to discuss the turn spot both in theory and then in practice. Dave says it has become "standard" for check-raising ranges to be polarized. In his second book, Matthew Janda (p.169) summarizes why this is the case, 'Since check-raising is expensive and allows our opponent to fold many hands in his betting range without being exploitable, the check-raising range should, for the most part, be polarized...'

    In this particular turn situation, in theory I don't have any check-raising range because after I check-call this flop my range is condensed (capped) and my opponent has the range-advantage and nut-advantage, and this 7 :heart: turn card doesn't change any of that.

    In practice against certain opponents, I agree that the $50 sizing is often indicative that our hand might be worth a small x-r in an attempt to get thin value from some weaker one-pair hands or draws.

    With the read I had on this particular opponent and my perceived image at this point in the session, had I decided to x-r turn it's likely he would have quickly folded any of the weaker one-pair hands I would be targeting for value.

Sign In or Register to comment.