<?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: The Re-Squeeze	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/03/the-re-squeeze-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/03/the-re-squeeze-2/</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>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 23:38:30 +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/the-re-squeeze-2/#comment-4256</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[foucault]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 23:38:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=4402#comment-4256</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/03/the-re-squeeze-2/#comment-4232&quot;&gt;Christoph&lt;/a&gt;.

The better my hand and the bigger the pot, the less I care about strong reads. Like Greylock said, I&#039;m not too worried about CO. Even if he calls, he&#039;ll rarely have me in terrible shape. I do like to have at least an inkling that the squeezer is going to be squeezy, though.

Range still matters even if the situation only comes up once. I&#039;d say though that KTs is better than some Axs, because you&#039;ll probably get called by AQ but not KQ. Against a range of {TT+,AJs+,AQo+}, KTs performs about 3% better than A2s.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/03/the-re-squeeze-2/#comment-4232">Christoph</a>.</p>
<p>The better my hand and the bigger the pot, the less I care about strong reads. Like Greylock said, I&#8217;m not too worried about CO. Even if he calls, he&#8217;ll rarely have me in terrible shape. I do like to have at least an inkling that the squeezer is going to be squeezy, though.</p>
<p>Range still matters even if the situation only comes up once. I&#8217;d say though that KTs is better than some Axs, because you&#8217;ll probably get called by AQ but not KQ. Against a range of {TT+,AJs+,AQo+}, KTs performs about 3% better than A2s.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: foucault		</title>
		<link>https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/03/the-re-squeeze-2/#comment-4255</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[foucault]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 23:31:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=4402#comment-4255</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/03/the-re-squeeze-2/#comment-4234&quot;&gt;greylocks&lt;/a&gt;.

Sorry grey, I know I should have checked your exact wording, just being lazy. Sorry for slandering you.... :-)]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/03/the-re-squeeze-2/#comment-4234">greylocks</a>.</p>
<p>Sorry grey, I know I should have checked your exact wording, just being lazy. Sorry for slandering you&#8230;. 🙂</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: foucault		</title>
		<link>https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/03/the-re-squeeze-2/#comment-4254</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[foucault]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 23:30:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=4402#comment-4254</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/03/the-re-squeeze-2/#comment-4237&quot;&gt;Alex&lt;/a&gt;.

Actually I don&#039;t watch HSP, but FWIW I&#039;ve heard some well-respected online cash players say surprisingly flattering things about Esfandiari.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/03/the-re-squeeze-2/#comment-4237">Alex</a>.</p>
<p>Actually I don&#8217;t watch HSP, but FWIW I&#8217;ve heard some well-respected online cash players say surprisingly flattering things about Esfandiari.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Alex		</title>
		<link>https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/03/the-re-squeeze-2/#comment-4237</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Alex]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:06:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=4402#comment-4237</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Hey Andrew, sorry for the unrelated question.  Would be very curious to ask you a few opinions about the current seasons of High Stakes Poker on TV (assuming you watch it).  (a) what do you think about Negreanu&#039;s play?  (b) In general, what do you think about the level of play?  Is it possible that old-timers like Elezra/Esfandiari/Hansen go through any of &#039;higher&#039; level thinking that online 25-50/50-100NL pros do? what about dwan/manieri?  Thank you!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Andrew, sorry for the unrelated question.  Would be very curious to ask you a few opinions about the current seasons of High Stakes Poker on TV (assuming you watch it).  (a) what do you think about Negreanu&#8217;s play?  (b) In general, what do you think about the level of play?  Is it possible that old-timers like Elezra/Esfandiari/Hansen go through any of &#8216;higher&#8217; level thinking that online 25-50/50-100NL pros do? what about dwan/manieri?  Thank you!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: greylocks		</title>
		<link>https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/03/the-re-squeeze-2/#comment-4234</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[greylocks]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:10:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=4402#comment-4234</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I didn&#039;t say &quot;pretty much always&quot; but no big deal.

To answer Christoph, I think with the great majority of 2/4 players, once CO calls the three-bet rather than four-betting himself, you can assume CO doesn&#039;t have enough hand to call a four-bet shove. So it comes down primarily to what you think SB&#039;s range is.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I didn&#8217;t say &#8220;pretty much always&#8221; but no big deal.</p>
<p>To answer Christoph, I think with the great majority of 2/4 players, once CO calls the three-bet rather than four-betting himself, you can assume CO doesn&#8217;t have enough hand to call a four-bet shove. So it comes down primarily to what you think SB&#8217;s range is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: James		</title>
		<link>https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/03/the-re-squeeze-2/#comment-4233</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[James]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:18:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=4402#comment-4233</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I made the same move last night.  It didn&#039;t work out as well.....]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I made the same move last night.  It didn&#8217;t work out as well&#8230;..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Christoph		</title>
		<link>https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2010/03/the-re-squeeze-2/#comment-4232</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Christoph]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:59:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=4402#comment-4232</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Maybe that&#039;s a stupid question, but what kind of information do you need to make a play like this one. Are the positions enough and you&#039;d consider doing this on a table full of unknowns or do you look for an aggressive SQZer or just an aggressive dynamic in general before you pull a move like this?

I&#039;m also not sure how much I should be thinking about my own range in a spot like this. I think suited Ax would be the best hands to 4b bluff, but if I&#039;d do this with all the suited Ax I call with preflop then I probably shouldn&#039;t add too many &quot;weak&quot; hands to that or I risk having a pretty weak range. Then again this is a spot that doesn&#039;t come up all that often, so I&#039;m not sure if my range even matters in that sense, or if I should just do it whenever I have a hand that has some equity against a calling range and I think it&#039;s a good spot. I&#039;m pretty confused there...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maybe that&#8217;s a stupid question, but what kind of information do you need to make a play like this one. Are the positions enough and you&#8217;d consider doing this on a table full of unknowns or do you look for an aggressive SQZer or just an aggressive dynamic in general before you pull a move like this?</p>
<p>I&#8217;m also not sure how much I should be thinking about my own range in a spot like this. I think suited Ax would be the best hands to 4b bluff, but if I&#8217;d do this with all the suited Ax I call with preflop then I probably shouldn&#8217;t add too many &#8220;weak&#8221; hands to that or I risk having a pretty weak range. Then again this is a spot that doesn&#8217;t come up all that often, so I&#8217;m not sure if my range even matters in that sense, or if I should just do it whenever I have a hand that has some equity against a calling range and I think it&#8217;s a good spot. I&#8217;m pretty confused there&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
