IP vs maniac. Preflop question.

I'm not sure I want to go to war with a mainiac with Q7s, but let's just double check he's a mainiac

My assumption on a genuine mainiac and not a highly LAGGY player would be:

i) He's almost always 4 bet shoving your 3-bet
ii) He 3-barrels nearly 100% post with big sizes (minimum half pot and often pot or bigger) and will nearly always raise a bet.
iii) Folds very rarely, and virtually never checks or calls ever
iv) It could be monotone hearts flop and you still get his whole stack with nearly all his range.

Are these fair assumptions?

Against a genuine mainiac I'm willing to get my stack in with top/2nd pair or even be willing to call down with Ace high sometimes, so I tend to prfer high cards, and suitedness is less important. Given that I'd probably prefer to play A3o or KTo than Q7s.

WIth a mainiac this shallow, we have to assume we're playing for stacks more or less whatever the runnout so we have to assume we're getting our stack in with any Queen, possibly any 7 as well as obviously anything better.

Without doing the odds, I think I just make a nitty fold pre.

Against players like this, I often feel tempted to see the flop with marginal hands. But usually, it ends with a fold on the flop and losing money.

You have the blinds to act and if you flat and they are paying attention they know your range is severely capped. Like the kind of garbage hand you have an aware player there will squeeze at a high frequency. If this is 1/2 or 2/5 and you have super passives in the blinds I can get behind calling.

Define close to 100% of range. K2o? 43o? 73o?

There are two competing factors here. One, the qider v is, the more incentivised you are to continue wide here. Q7s would be really close. Two, when villains are more aggressive postflop, you have a strong incentive to tighten up preflop. The more marginal hands you have preflop, the more tough spots you get put into postflop vs very aggressive opponents. The hands you are going to want to continue are going to be more high card oriented and more connected than Q7s. A hand like KJo which could either 3bet or call vs this villain is much better, because you have two high cards where if you flop a pair, it has a fair chance to be the best hand, and you have a decent kicker too. You can are also more likely to flop open enders and gutshots, or straight draw + overs, pair + draw type hands. And K high has some showdown value vs a wide range.

I think I would lean towards folding Q7s, but Q9s, Q8s seem like they may be good enough. Whether or not you want to 3b those hands matters how he responds to 3b. If he is always calling, I would just be more linear. I would 3b KTo before I 3b Q9s vs a very sticky loose villain. High cards are king here.

Against maniacs you can call wider in the right situations. You have to consider who is after you and what they may do. In this hand you have a bigger problem, the effective stack is very small. If you flat call and nobody comes along you will be seeing a flop with SPR way under 10. That is going to cripple your ability to play post flop because your either going to be committed or folding on the flop. The maniac will be c-betting close to 100% of the time and you need to be able to call that most of the time without putting a significant part of your stack in. You need to be able to go a couple of streets before being worried about commitment.
Against a maniac playing in a short stack situation play tighter, raise or fold and be ready to move in preflop.

Fold. theres better spots

I like to play 3! or fold versus a maniac here. easy fold if he 4!'s and when he calls our pair or flush is almost always good and we can play for stacks

He might be a maniac but are the blinds? HU Q7s is a question; two people left to act why are you playing like a maniac?

Opening "close to 100% of hands" doesn't make someone a "maniac" unless they're also blasting of post-flop. But feel free to 3-bet with suited crap even though you don't have a plan for post-flop.

Fold. You are playing 60BBs deep. There are no IOs for calling with suited trash, and while you can consider 3-bet bluffing the top of your folding range, I would prefer to do that with hands that either have an ace or are likely to flop a semi-bluffing opportunity.

Yeah, if we were deeper, I'd play raise or fold pre against this guy, but we don't have the stack depth here to screw around with such a marginal holding.

This is exactly the reason why everyone's suggesting to fold pre.

As I understand it, when we're playing deep-stacked, everything depends on the blinds. If there are passive players in the blinds, it's fine to play by calling. But if there are players capable of exploiting and squeezing, then it's better to go for a 3-bet.
But if we're playing against a short stack, we do the same thing, only with a tighter range. That's because if we 3-bet, there's a high chance we'll face a 4-bet shove.

How passive the blinds are also plays a role? For example, if the players in the blinds are constantly calling, it's not great to go multiway with hands like Q7s. In that case, it's better to either 3-bet or fold preflop.

I disagree that everything depends on the blinds here. In fact I'd say very little if anything depends on the blinds.

Our hand is barely strong enough to call no matter what the stack depth, and doesn't fare well as a raise vs his calling range when we get to the flop.

If we were super-deep and wanted to screw around by 3B'ing Q7s, knowing we won't be pot committed, and we'll be going to the flop with a high SPR, okay, go ahead and screw around occasionally, if you think you can make him fold pre, or fold post.

At shorter stack depths, it's just a spew to 3B this hand against a maniac with a hard-to-find fold button.