<?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: Logan WiFi Works Good Too	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/03/logan-wifi-works-good-too/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/03/logan-wifi-works-good-too/</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>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:18:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: foucault		</title>
		<link>https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/03/logan-wifi-works-good-too/#comment-4229</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[foucault]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:18:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=4397#comment-4229</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/03/logan-wifi-works-good-too/#comment-4228&quot;&gt;Poker Meister&lt;/a&gt;.

There&#039;s not much reason to pass any marginal edge in a cash game, pretty much only if you&#039;re tilt prone or underrolled (both of which would if anything suggest being more conservative at higher stakes.) Nothing about a marginal edge prevents you from taking the easier money in better spots as well.

Whether 5-betting 22, even in a blind battle, is an edge at all is a separate question. You&#039;d have to have a dynamic where people are 4-bet-calling stuff like AT before your 22 starts to have better equity vs. his range than a lot of other hands. Not to mention the fact that if you are getting 4-bet that often, flatting rather than 3-betting 22 might also be more desirable.

All of that said, FWF is certainly a better player than I am. Maybe he was tilting, or maybe he just knows something I don&#039;t.

Thanks for sharing, Mac.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/03/logan-wifi-works-good-too/#comment-4228">Poker Meister</a>.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s not much reason to pass any marginal edge in a cash game, pretty much only if you&#8217;re tilt prone or underrolled (both of which would if anything suggest being more conservative at higher stakes.) Nothing about a marginal edge prevents you from taking the easier money in better spots as well.</p>
<p>Whether 5-betting 22, even in a blind battle, is an edge at all is a separate question. You&#8217;d have to have a dynamic where people are 4-bet-calling stuff like AT before your 22 starts to have better equity vs. his range than a lot of other hands. Not to mention the fact that if you are getting 4-bet that often, flatting rather than 3-betting 22 might also be more desirable.</p>
<p>All of that said, FWF is certainly a better player than I am. Maybe he was tilting, or maybe he just knows something I don&#8217;t.</p>
<p>Thanks for sharing, Mac.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Poker Meister		</title>
		<link>https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/03/logan-wifi-works-good-too/#comment-4228</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Poker Meister]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:59:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=4397#comment-4228</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[5betting with 22?  From the surface, I&#039;d think he&#039;s more of a gambler than a poker player.  Is it that critical in the upper levels to take such marginal edges?  Obviously, down at the ground level of 100NL, I&#039;m passing up spots like this because I know there&#039;s easier money to be made in better spots...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>5betting with 22?  From the surface, I&#8217;d think he&#8217;s more of a gambler than a poker player.  Is it that critical in the upper levels to take such marginal edges?  Obviously, down at the ground level of 100NL, I&#8217;m passing up spots like this because I know there&#8217;s easier money to be made in better spots&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Mac		</title>
		<link>https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/03/logan-wifi-works-good-too/#comment-4227</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mac]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:45:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=4397#comment-4227</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I just looked at his (DaEvils) PTR Session from the 7th and he did the same thing before w/22 in the SB vs. CityBoy&#039;s AKdd and held for a 200 BB pot :) (to confirm how light of a 5 bettor he is)]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just looked at his (DaEvils) PTR Session from the 7th and he did the same thing before w/22 in the SB vs. CityBoy&#8217;s AKdd and held for a 200 BB pot 🙂 (to confirm how light of a 5 bettor he is)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Emily		</title>
		<link>https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/03/logan-wifi-works-good-too/#comment-4224</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Emily]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:33:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=4397#comment-4224</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/03/logan-wifi-works-good-too/#comment-4222&quot;&gt;Champ&lt;/a&gt;.

It helps to have a good personal firewall. We just got NOD32 which was well reviewed and supposed  to be one of the less invasive, less resource-intensive anti-virus/firewall/spam suites. Pretty reasonable price too. And just feels less evil than Norton etc]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/03/logan-wifi-works-good-too/#comment-4222">Champ</a>.</p>
<p>It helps to have a good personal firewall. We just got NOD32 which was well reviewed and supposed  to be one of the less invasive, less resource-intensive anti-virus/firewall/spam suites. Pretty reasonable price too. And just feels less evil than Norton etc</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Chris M		</title>
		<link>https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/03/logan-wifi-works-good-too/#comment-4223</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris M]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:31:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=4397#comment-4223</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/03/logan-wifi-works-good-too/#comment-4221&quot;&gt;foucault&lt;/a&gt;.

fwf says himself he&#039;s one of the lighter 5bettors online, haha]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/03/logan-wifi-works-good-too/#comment-4221">foucault</a>.</p>
<p>fwf says himself he&#8217;s one of the lighter 5bettors online, haha</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Champ		</title>
		<link>https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/03/logan-wifi-works-good-too/#comment-4222</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Champ]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 18:25:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=4397#comment-4222</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Isn&#039;t there a vulnerability risk using free, unprotected wi-fi, like at Logan?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Isn&#8217;t there a vulnerability risk using free, unprotected wi-fi, like at Logan?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: foucault		</title>
		<link>https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/03/logan-wifi-works-good-too/#comment-4221</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[foucault]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 13:58:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=4397#comment-4221</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/03/logan-wifi-works-good-too/#comment-4218&quot;&gt;Poker Meister&lt;/a&gt;.

Even if there were 30 people at the table, once 26 of them have folded, the situation is the same. What matters is how many players are left to act behind you, not how many already folded in front of you.

Would it be a mistake to fold this? In a game theory sense, yes- it would be an exploitable mistake. Queens are way too close to the top of your CO raising range to fold them for 100BBs.

That said, you can and should fold (or flat call rather than 4-bet) them if you have a read that your opponent has an exploitably tight 5-betting range. This is probably a little more true of the average FR player than the average 6-max player, but without a specific read I still would probably 4-bet and get it in. 

In this hand, Villain was DaEvils, better known as FoxwoodsFiend. We have very little history together, but I&#039;m sure he&#039;s a good enough player that I can profitably get it in with Q&#039;s here.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/03/logan-wifi-works-good-too/#comment-4218">Poker Meister</a>.</p>
<p>Even if there were 30 people at the table, once 26 of them have folded, the situation is the same. What matters is how many players are left to act behind you, not how many already folded in front of you.</p>
<p>Would it be a mistake to fold this? In a game theory sense, yes- it would be an exploitable mistake. Queens are way too close to the top of your CO raising range to fold them for 100BBs.</p>
<p>That said, you can and should fold (or flat call rather than 4-bet) them if you have a read that your opponent has an exploitably tight 5-betting range. This is probably a little more true of the average FR player than the average 6-max player, but without a specific read I still would probably 4-bet and get it in. </p>
<p>In this hand, Villain was DaEvils, better known as FoxwoodsFiend. We have very little history together, but I&#8217;m sure he&#8217;s a good enough player that I can profitably get it in with Q&#8217;s here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Poker Meister		</title>
		<link>https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/03/logan-wifi-works-good-too/#comment-4218</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Poker Meister]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 04:14:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=4397#comment-4218</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Quick question:  FR, are you stacking off with QQ in this spot?  I&#039;ve been getting away from action like what you face PF, and flatting instead of 4bet / calling all in.

A.  Did you have reads on this villain?
B.  Is it a mistake to not stack off in this situation, FR?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Quick question:  FR, are you stacking off with QQ in this spot?  I&#8217;ve been getting away from action like what you face PF, and flatting instead of 4bet / calling all in.</p>
<p>A.  Did you have reads on this villain?<br />
B.  Is it a mistake to not stack off in this situation, FR?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
