<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:podcast="https://podcastindex.org/namespace/1.0"
xmlns:rawvoice="https://blubrry.com/developer/rawvoice-rss/"

	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Betting For Protection	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2009/11/betting-for-protection/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2009/11/betting-for-protection/</link>
	<description>Weekly poker podcast hosted by Andrew Brokos and Nate Meyvis featuring interviews with famous and behind-the-scenes figures from the poker world as well as an in-depth poker strategy segment.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Dec 2009 06:47:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Chris M		</title>
		<link>https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2009/11/betting-for-protection/#comment-3976</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris M]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:46:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=3452#comment-3976</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[FWF made a pretty good statement about &#039;betting for protection&#039; that is mostly in line with what you&#039;re saying here - something along the lines of.

&quot;Giving up free cards is a fundamental error in poker, and shouldn&#039;t be done unless the EV of checking can outweigh the EV lost by not betting.&quot;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>FWF made a pretty good statement about &#8216;betting for protection&#8217; that is mostly in line with what you&#8217;re saying here &#8211; something along the lines of.</p>
<p>&#8220;Giving up free cards is a fundamental error in poker, and shouldn&#8217;t be done unless the EV of checking can outweigh the EV lost by not betting.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: foucault		</title>
		<link>https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2009/11/betting-for-protection/#comment-3973</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[foucault]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:59:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=3452#comment-3973</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2009/11/betting-for-protection/#comment-3966&quot;&gt;bruechips&lt;/a&gt;.

If those guys were really check-folding whenever they missed their sets, then I&#039;d agree with you. In my experience, they often would call a bet if you checked back the flop. Or, if they were also limp-calling suited connectors, they&#039;d sometimes bluff the turn. I usually considered the chances of those things higher than the risk of letting them draw to a 2-outer. Also, if those guys start getting excited on a K-high flop, don&#039;t stack off to them.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2009/11/betting-for-protection/#comment-3966">bruechips</a>.</p>
<p>If those guys were really check-folding whenever they missed their sets, then I&#8217;d agree with you. In my experience, they often would call a bet if you checked back the flop. Or, if they were also limp-calling suited connectors, they&#8217;d sometimes bluff the turn. I usually considered the chances of those things higher than the risk of letting them draw to a 2-outer. Also, if those guys start getting excited on a K-high flop, don&#8217;t stack off to them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: foucault		</title>
		<link>https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2009/11/betting-for-protection/#comment-3969</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[foucault]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:06:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=3452#comment-3969</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2009/11/betting-for-protection/#comment-3968&quot;&gt;Michael&lt;/a&gt;.

I just glanced at it, and it looks likes the only thing they screwed up was that I had J9s, not off-suit as they say in the first part of the HH. Is there something else I&#039;m missing?

I do appreciate the heads up, though- I didn&#039;t even know they&#039;d published this!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2009/11/betting-for-protection/#comment-3968">Michael</a>.</p>
<p>I just glanced at it, and it looks likes the only thing they screwed up was that I had J9s, not off-suit as they say in the first part of the HH. Is there something else I&#8217;m missing?</p>
<p>I do appreciate the heads up, though- I didn&#8217;t even know they&#8217;d published this!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Michael		</title>
		<link>https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2009/11/betting-for-protection/#comment-3968</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:16:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=3452#comment-3968</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Brokos,

Your latest CardPlayer article (http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/7935-poker-strategy-andrew-brokos-on-folding-out-draws) has a completely messed up hand history.  Can you get them to fix it?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Brokos,</p>
<p>Your latest CardPlayer article (<a href="http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/7935-poker-strategy-andrew-brokos-on-folding-out-draws" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/7935-poker-strategy-andrew-brokos-on-folding-out-draws</a>) has a completely messed up hand history.  Can you get them to fix it?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: bruechips		</title>
		<link>https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2009/11/betting-for-protection/#comment-3966</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[bruechips]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:46:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=3452#comment-3966</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[An example from the good old full ring days when people used to limp/call low pps in EP all the time: you raise their limp with AK, flop is K72r, it&#039;s tempting to check back because you know they have a pocket pair and they&#039;re never putting in any more money unless it&#039;s 77 or 22, so you&#039;re not getting called by worse, and you&#039;re certainly not folding out better. The problem is, they&#039;re never putting in more money on later streets without a set either, so by checking flop, you&#039;re just letting them draw to a two-outter that will cost you a bunch of money. It took me getting stacked by turned sets against those guys a couple of times to realize that checking the flop is just letting them freeroll me.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>An example from the good old full ring days when people used to limp/call low pps in EP all the time: you raise their limp with AK, flop is K72r, it&#8217;s tempting to check back because you know they have a pocket pair and they&#8217;re never putting in any more money unless it&#8217;s 77 or 22, so you&#8217;re not getting called by worse, and you&#8217;re certainly not folding out better. The problem is, they&#8217;re never putting in more money on later streets without a set either, so by checking flop, you&#8217;re just letting them draw to a two-outter that will cost you a bunch of money. It took me getting stacked by turned sets against those guys a couple of times to realize that checking the flop is just letting them freeroll me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
