Squeeeeze
 

Which of any of these 3 do you like? Please give reasons of why you like/dislike: (no reads in all 3)


Party Poker
No Limit Holdem Ring game
Blinds: $1/$2
6 players
Converter

Stack sizes:
UTG: $389.33
UTG+1: $205.88
CO: $496.64
Button: $171.55
SB: $210.30
Hero: $207.15

Pre-flop: (6 players) Hero is BB with A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
<font color="#cc0000">UTG raises to $8</font>, UTG+1 calls, CO folds, Button calls, SB folds, <font color="#cc0000">Hero raises to $41</font>





Party Poker
No Limit Holdem Ring game
Blinds: $1/$2
6 players
Converter

Stack sizes:
UTG: $378.65
UTG+1: $200
CO: $135.15
Button: $14.80
SB: $300.40
Hero: $248.55

Pre-flop: (6 players) Hero is BB with 9[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]
UTG folds, <font color="#cc0000">UTG+1 raises to $7</font>, CO calls, Button folds, SB calls, <font color="#cc0000">Hero raises to $35</font>





Party Poker
No Limit Holdem Ring game
Blinds: $1/$2
6 players
Converter

Stack sizes:
UTG: $197.30
UTG+1: $365.24
CO: $320.40
Button: $233
SB: $183.80
Hero: $200

Pre-flop: (6 players) Hero is BB with 6[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
UTG folds, UTG+1 calls, <font color="#cc0000">CO raises to $9</font>, Button calls, SB calls, <font color="#cc0000">Hero raises to $47</font>

Re: Squeeeeze
 

no reads, i dont like squeezing UTG raises. the last one i love.

Re: Squeeeeze
 

1. No. With no reads, I'd not get involved with a highly potentially dominated hand against an UTG raiser.

2. Not bad, though I suspect this is neutral to just calling and playing for set value.

3. Absolutely. That's my play very often, and you'll grab that dead money happily.

Re: Squeeeeze
 

[ QUOTE ]
1. No. With no reads, I'd not get involved with a highly potentially dominated hand against an UTG raiser.

2. Not bad, though I suspect this is neutral to just calling and playing for set value.

3. Absolutely. That's my play very often, and you'll grab that dead money happily.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly how I rank them, 3&gt;&gt;&gt;2&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&g t;&gt;&gt;1

Re: Squeeeeze
 

I agree with carnival. I REALLY hate the second hand because you kill implied odds for a set.

Re: Squeeeeze
 

In my experiences, squeezing is much more effective when there is only 2 people in the pot, ex. UTG raises, Button calls, We 3bet in the BB.

I just think that in the last 2, especially, it would be better to call and play a multiway pot. Just my opinion.

Edit: Yes, you are getting more dead money in the pot but with these last 2 hands I would rather see a flop.

Re: Squeeeeze
 

Hand 1 is the only one I don't like. If called you are in a tough spot if you don't hit the flop hard...

In hand 1 are you CBetting ANY flop?

Hand 2 and 3 are great especially with all the dead money.

Re: Squeeeeze
 

Exactly how I rank them, 3&gt;&gt;&gt;2&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&g t;&gt;&gt;1

Re: Squeeeeze
 

1) Bad. Against 2 early raisers. Plus theirs no such thing as a good flop against a caller. Bad reverse implied odds. Might as well do it, then with any two cards.

2) fine. but calling is proably just as +EV.

3) sexy.

Re: Squeeeeze
 

[ QUOTE ]
1) Bad. Against 2 early raisers. Plus theirs no such thing as a good flop against a caller. Bad reverse implied odds. Might as well do it, then with any two cards.

2) fine. but calling is proably just as +EV.

3) sexy.

[/ QUOTE ]

DB,

I pwned this thread, obv.

Please come up with hands that are not so standard kthx.

Re: Squeeeeze
 

Hi guys, I'm sorry to detract from the strategy discussion, but please help a newbie out. I am aware of what the squeeze play is (when a player in early position raises and is cold called, and then you 3bet in late position), but I don't understand why this play is supposed to work? I understand that the initial raiser is often forced to muck his hand since he is going to be OOP against a cold caller and a re-raiser who have both shown a lot of PF strenth, but I don't understand why the cold caller is supposed to throw away his hand?

Re: Squeeeeze
 

epdaws and others,

How often are you reraising vs. calling in hands 2 and 3? These are pretty much always calls for me.

Re: Squeeeeze
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi guys, I'm sorry to detract from the strategy discussion, but please help a newbie out. I am aware of what the squeeze play is (when a player in early position raises and is cold called, and then you 3bet in late position), but I don't understand why this play is supposed to work? I understand that the initial raiser is often forced to muck his hand since he is going to be OOP against a cold caller and a re-raiser who have both shown a lot of PF strenth, but I don't understand why the cold caller is supposed to throw away his hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

What kinds of hands is a cold caller calling with that can stand a pot-sized raise? Or, to phrase it differently, what kinds of hands is a player usually cold-calling a PF raise with instead of re-raising himself?

Re: Squeeeeze
 

The assumption is that the PF raiser will be afraid of not only your hand but also the coldcallers so the initial raiser will hopefully fold, then the coldcaller usually wont be too strong since he just called the raise and did not 3 bet himself.

Re: Squeeeeze
 

im calling in both because im a nit but i like raising because of the doors it can open for you. raising with 67s is so sweet because your hand is so disguised esp when you flop something like a 6 7. raising a hand like this has to be complete opponenet dependent though

Re: Squeeeeze
 

TBH, unless I have some kind of an idea how my opponents play I very rarely make 'moves' preflop. Too often it's just spewing. So, with no reads I would say I dislike all of them.

Given the right reads/image/flow I might make any of these plays I guess.

Re: Squeeeeze
 

[ QUOTE ]
epdaws and others,

How often are you reraising vs. calling in hands 2 and 3. These are pretty much always calls for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hand 2 call 80%, though this will likely rise as I continue to move up in levels.

Hand 3: Raise 65%, call 35% or so.

Re: Squeeeeze
 

[ QUOTE ]
epdaws and others,

How often are you reraising vs. calling in hands 2 and 3? These are pretty much always calls for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

The wider the raiser's range, the more often I re-raise. Your hand is too good to play for set value alone vs. a wide range, but you won't like playing 99 OOP on most flops unless you have some initiative.

Re: Squeeeeze
 

all,

is hand 1 a fold then?

Re: Squeeeeze
 

I can play 99 OOP in a four-way raised pot postflop pretty easily most of the time ... if I don't have a set I'm done.

Re: Squeeeeze
 

yes. how comfortable are you if you flop a bare ace or jack, regradless of what you have been representing

Re: Squeeeeze
 

I hate being dominated or killing my odds for a set, so yea what they said. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Squeeeeze
 

1 no, 2 is ok, i call and try to flop a set though, 3 is sexy. I love squeezing. [censored] is fun.

Re: Squeeeeze
 

Well I guess the answer would have to be speculative hands such as low pocket pairs and SC's? So when you're squeezing I suppose you have to pick your spots carefully, because lots of nits just cold call with JJ,TT,AK and AQ, right?

Re: Squeeeeze
 

Hand 1 I prefer fold &gt; raise &gt; call. This hand is the one I most dislike.

Hand 2 is whatever. I think flopping a set multiway is fine, and I also think that taking it down PF or on the flop is fine too.

Hand 3 is okay. I pull the same move frequently.

Re: Squeeeeze
 

1 is an easy fold.

Re: Squeeeeze
 

[ QUOTE ]
I can play 99 OOP in a four-way raised pot postflop pretty easily most of the time ... if I don't have a set I'm done.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the first raiser has a wide range, you are effectively playing the best hand preflop for set value.

Sure it's probably +EV, but raising is higher EV.

Re: Squeeeeze
 

The only problem with hand 1 is if the UTG calls and then everyone else decides they have implied odds and come along for the ride. But I still think there's a good chance you take it down there.

Re: Squeeeeze
 

I'm used to 10-handed, but I'll give them a go.

1) fold. out of position with a dominated hand and UTG has you out-stacked.
2) pretty much my standard play, although you can consider calling here.
3) I'd likely call here and hope for a monster. This play isn't in my game, though I'm thinking it should be.

Re: Squeeeeze
 

[ QUOTE ]
In my experiences, squeezing is much more effective when there is only 2 people in the pot...

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Squeeeeze
 

[ QUOTE ]
all,

is hand 1 a fold then?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

Re: Squeeeeze
 

bilbo-san and others,

Here's the problem I have with the second hand: The risk-reward ratio just seems too high. We've got three people in the hand, and we have a good but not great hand that is going to be hard to play postflop if we miss. Sure, squeezing here may take it down right now, and a flop c-bet may take it down, too. But we're risking an awful lot to find out, especially at these stakes, where people love to call. I feel more often than not we're just slamming ourselves into a brick wall, with no need, when we also have the option of calling and trying to spike a 9.

Maybe I'm wrong. I've been wrong before.

Re: Squeeeeze
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm used to 10-handed, but I'll give them a go.

1) fold. out of position with a dominated hand and UTG has you out-stacked.
2) pretty much my standard play, although you can consider calling here.
3) I'd likely call here and hope for a monster. This play isn't in my game, though I'm thinking it should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, ya, 10 handed AJo is poison. Hell, AQo is poison vs. 10-handed UTG raisers.

The problem with 3) is that you don't flop a monster often enough (and what's a "monster")?

You'll flop draws, but it's really hard to extract on draws OOP.

And some flops that you might consider monsters are in fact, very obvious to the other players (77x, 66x), and you aren't likely to get much action.

And some flops that look monstrous are in fact very high-variance flops where someone else may have flopped a big draw (76A).

Now, if you raise and are called, there is practically no way that the caller is going to ever think you hit the 77x flop, or have a 7 with a better kicker.

Re: Squeeeeze
 

[ QUOTE ]
bilbo-san and others,

Here's the problem I have with the second hand: The risk-reward ratio just seems too high. We've got three people in the hand, and we have a good but not great hand that is going to be hard to play postflop if we miss. Sure, squeezing here may take it down right now, and a flop c-bet may take it down, too. But we're risking an awful lot to find out, especially at these stakes, where people love to call. I feel more often than not we're just slamming ourselves into a brick wall, with no need, when we also have the option of calling and trying to spike a 9.

Maybe I'm wrong. I've been wrong before.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is 99 hard to play when you miss? If you get called, you bet just about any flop. If you are called, you give up unless you hit a 9. If you get called by 2 or 3 people, fuhgetaboudit and c/f anything but a 9.

It's very easy to play. The sum of the probabilities of taking it down now + taking it down with a CB are more profitable than calling for set value.

The exception is if you are playing with some 55/10/2 types. Then, I'm nut-pedalling 99. But this discussion isn't geared towards that type of table texture (I hope).

Re: Squeeeeze
 

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with 3) is that you don't flop a monster often enough (and what's a "monster")?

You'll flop draws, but it's really hard to extract on draws OOP.

And some flops that you might consider monsters are in fact, very obvious to the other players (77x, 66x), and you aren't likely to get much action.

And some flops that look monstrous are in fact very high-variance flops where someone else may have flopped a big draw (76A).

Now, if you raise and are called, there is practically no way that the caller is going to ever think you hit the 77x flop, or have a 7 with a better kicker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I've realized I'm not playing this situation correctly. I'm putting myself into situations where, if I were to win, I won't win much.

Re: Squeeeeze
 

I just feel you get called down too often to make this more profitable than simply playing for set value at these stakes. I understand how you'd play it if you choose to squeeze, I just don't like the risk-reward ratio compared to just calling preflop.

Re: Squeeeeze
 

antidan,

my biggest problem with playing for set value is that you'll rarely stack any1 if you hit, unless you get very lucky and the PFR has AA/KK. IME, in multiway pots, people play very straightforward and even a bit cautious

Re: Squeeeeze
 

When I hit a set in a four-way pot at 50NL or 100NL, I get paid off plenty.

Re: Squeeeeze
 

[ QUOTE ]
I just feel you get called down too often to make this more profitable than simply playing for set value at these stakes. I understand how you'd play it if you choose to squeeze, I just don't like the risk-reward ratio compared to just calling preflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

What *worse* hands call down at these stakes (and if they did, why would that be bad)?

Villains will obviously call the flop if they out-flop you, but that isn't the point.

If your point is that UTG always has a better hand preflop then we aren't talking about the same thing when I say "wide raising range". If you think that Villains always outflop you, then we have different understandings of probability. If you think that Villains always call the flop with unimproved overcards in RE-raised pots then we are talking about different types of Villains, and I agree that we shouldn't be re-popping 99 against them.

Re: Squeeeeze
 

hand 1 works if UTG raiser is pretty LAG and you're willing to play some poker...but without knowing this i drop it.

others look good.