Defense against the squeeze play...
 

In a local casino, I’m playing $40/$80 limit 3 or 4-handed and sitting in the 9 seat. Next two players comes a man and a woman. They could be a couple, but they are at the very least friends as they are often whispering in each other’s ears between plays. By their play, they clearly aren’t passive or very fishy, nor are they soft playing each other either.

So the woman sits in the 8 seat to my right and the man sits in the 7 seat two to my right. And when it’s my big blind and it’s folded to the button, the guy raises his button, and the woman looks at her cards from SB and 3-bets, and I fold my trash and they play out their hand (no showdown). Ok, no problem there.

But then it happens again. And again. And again. No less than 4 times within say 45 minutes.

So basically I’m feeling squeezed and other than simply racking up and leaving is there any rational and reasonable defense here?

FWIW, the rule in this casino is when it gets short-handed, you cannot change seats.

Garland

Re: Defense against the squeeze play...
 

[ QUOTE ]
In a local casino, I’m playing $40/$80 limit 3 or 4-handed and sitting in the 9 seat. Next two players comes a man and a woman. They could be a couple, but they are at the very least friends as they are often whispering in each other’s ears between plays. By their play, they clearly aren’t passive or very fishy, nor are they soft playing each other either.

So the woman sits in the 8 seat to my right and the man sits in the 7 seat two to my right. And when it’s my big blind and it’s folded to the button, the guy raises his button, and the woman looks at her cards from SB and 3-bets, and I fold my trash and they play out their hand (no showdown). Ok, no problem there.

But then it happens again. And again. And again. No less than 4 times within say 45 minutes.

So basically I’m feeling squeezed and other than simply racking up and leaving is there any rational and reasonable defense here?

FWIW, the rule in this casino is when it gets short-handed, you cannot change seats.

Garland

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand the problem. If they are playing any two on your blind, they are throwing you money. To make even more money, decide in your head how much action it will take on your part to make them fold. If you think you know this, you will make even more monies.

As long as they are not colluding (and maybe even if they are, with these preflop ranges), you will make money if you loosen up, play hands that have 30% equity against 2 opponents with wide ranges, try not to fold these big pots postflop, and rake in the $$$. You lose $40 every time you fold, but the first pot you enter has $320 of their dollars in it.

Re: Defense against the squeeze play...
 

[ QUOTE ]
And when it’s my big blind and it’s folded to the button, the guy raises his button, and the woman looks at her cards from SB and 3-bets, and I cap it the third time they do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Defense against the squeeze play...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And when it’s my big blind and it’s folded to the button, the guy raises his button, and the woman looks at her cards from SB and 3-bets, and I cap it the third time they do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

3rd time or no, it's really difficult to cap with 62o. Each time she 3-bet, my high card was no higher than an 8. And pre-flop hand range defense really wasn't the point of this thread.

Garland

Re: Defense against the squeeze play...
 

I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that she is colluding to get the pot HU with the button or is it that she just happens to be 3betting the small blind every time the button opens the pot?

If it is the former then leave. If the latter then just adjust your capping range or coldcalling range to adapt to her large range. I suggest you start by capping more often to find out if the button will fold for 2 more because this is very good for you if he will. If he calls the extra 2 almost always then I suggest calling 2 in the bb much more often than you normally would and playing poker postflop. If you are not suggesting that they are cheating then your question is really no different than "what do I do if the cutoff raises every time on my button?" or countless other "what if my opponent does this?" questions that can all be answered by expand/decrease your range to take advantage of them in the best way possible.

Re: Defense against the squeeze play...
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that she is colluding to get the pot HU with the button ....

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what his post and title suggest to me.

Re: Defense against the squeeze play...
 

That's what I thought at first but it seems that the obvious response to this is to quit.

btw you can't change seats shorthanded at the Bike? That seems pretty retarded. What is "shorthanded" defined as?

Re: Defense against the squeeze play...
 

Since this was originally posted in B&M, OP might have wanted to know about his options talking to the Floor, etc (maybe get him to look at the hands one time to see if it is "shady")

Re: Defense against the squeeze play...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Since this was originally posted in B&M, OP might have wanted to know about his options talking to the Floor, etc (maybe get him to look at the hands one time to see if it is "shady")

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is what I was aiming at. I don't know why this got moved to Medium Stakes as I'm not asking what hands I can play from BB; I'm asking about if I should suspect collusion. How does the floor ever gets involved in anything like this? And I guess, how long I should "take it" before blowing the whistle. Since I know poker by nature is aggressive, and they are two good players they could in fact be just playing their cards hard against each other, which I have no problem with. However, if their plan was to bet/3-bet me each time and at the end of the session chop up the big blinds I folded in the parking lot, that would not be kosher.

Obviously, I could quit (but in this case the other two players were so weak that I thought I could exploit them). But I'm really looking at the overall big picture as I'm sure I'll bump into them again. It's a small poker world here at $40/$80.

BTW, this did not occur at the Bike. This happened at a local casino in the Bay Area a couple of months ago.

And a side question would be: What are people's experience with collusion in live play in general and how was it handled?

Thanks,

Garland

Re: Defense against the squeeze play...
 

Dude
It sounds to me that you were folding hands that you wouldn't be able to call a raise with anyway (8 high, 6high etc). I would suggest that you loosen up a bit and call 3 bet with the hand that you would call 1 raise and cap anything that worth 3 bets. If you feel that you being squeezed post flop then you can talk to the floor but i wouldn't. Great collusion is saving bets and not giving you odds postflop and sounds like they doing the opposite.

Re: Defense against the squeeze play...
 

Garland,

What did this couple look like?

Mark in Kansas City

Re: Defense against the squeeze play...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Dude
It sounds to me that you were folding hands that you wouldn't be able to call a raise with anyway (8 high, 6high etc).

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Defense against the squeeze play...
 

If you felt there was a strong possibility of collusion, then leave, or request a seat change (it's usually ok if you clear it with the players, yeah?). That said...

Another 2p2'er (Bdaddy) and I were once accused of the same thing. He was sitting on my right and every time it was folded to Bdaddy in the CO or on the button and he opened, I happened to have a hand that was likely ahead of his. And we never went to SD. After one player started barking at us (this was the 3rd or 4th time this happened over the course of an hour), I showed a flopped bottom two pair and he showed a flopped top-bottom pair. And I folded to his flop 5-bet.

That gentleman no longer made any comments. Point is, I think it's difficult to correctly suspect collusion in a short game just because the two people know each other.

Re: Defense against the squeeze play...
 

If I kept getting 6 and 8 highs in my BB while shorthanded, and the button would never fold if folded to him, I would much like the SB to continually 3 bet, because it makes my decision 100% easier. The only reason you are asking this is because they showed up together and have been seen talking to each other.

If it was two random people, you would just let it go as an aggressive shorthanded game.

But again, if you ever feel the integrity of the game is in question, it is best just to get up and leave. No reason to cause a scene, and insult others, just in case nothing wrong was going on. Go play 20 for awhile or go home...no big deal, the game will be there tomorrow.

Re: Defense against the squeeze play...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Dude
It sounds to me that you were folding hands that you wouldn't be able to call a raise with anyway (8 high, 6high etc). I would suggest that you loosen up a bit and call 3 bet with the hand that you would call 1 raise and cap anything that worth 3 bets. If you feel that you being squeezed post flop then you can talk to the floor but i wouldn't. Great collusion is saving bets and not giving you odds postflop and sounds like they doing the opposite.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please understand this really isn't about "loosening up" and defending my blind. You're right; I had blind hands I wouldn't call one bet, let alone two.

The real issue is I'm seeing play that is at least on the borderline of suspicious pre-flop. If they are in fact working together, who knows what they are capable of post-flop when a 3rd player enters in on the flop. The fact that they are aggressive, decent players exasperates the situation as cheating becomes more difficult to discern from honest hard play.

Remember, they are sitting right next to each other, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility that something like this happens:

(1) SB sees an above average hand and action fold to the button. Before button acts, SB taps button’s foot to signal to raise with any two, so she can 3-bet.

Or

(2) Button sees an above average hand and the action folded to him. He taps SB’s foot to re-raise any two.

Regardless of what I have, this is clearly illegal, but difficult to prove.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding “great collusion is saving bets”. Do you mean one team member “tells” the other to fold because he/she holds a great hand? This doesn’t really make sense since they would appear to be playing of the same bankroll and splitting their wins at the end of the day anyways. It makes more sense to have both in the pot more often so they can make audible plays at will.

Garland

Re: Defense against the squeeze play...
 

[ QUOTE ]
If I kept getting 6 and 8 highs in my BB while shorthanded, and the button would never fold if folded to him, I would much like the SB to continually 3 bet, because it makes my decision 100% easier. The only reason you are asking this is because they showed up together and have been seen talking to each other.

If it was two random people, you would just let it go as an aggressive shorthanded game.

But again, if you ever feel the integrity of the game is in question, it is best just to get up and leave. No reason to cause a scene, and insult others, just in case nothing wrong was going on. Go play 20 for awhile or go home...no big deal, the game will be there tomorrow.

[/ QUOTE ]

But what if I actually got a "marginal" hand? Even to a SB 3-bet? Say Q9s? Now I might cap it, but I'm probably going against at least one real hand, and they are both calling so they can work together against me post-flop. (This is, of course, theoretical as it never got to post-flop).

If I opt to just call 2 more bets, SB can opt to signal to button to raise again because SB is re-raising for value.

But you're probably right. I should probably opt to go home rather than say anything in case I'm wrong. I'm just thinking ahead like I usually do: "What should I do if I encounter them again and again?" I don't have too much experience with cheating (well, at least that I know of). I'm looking for insight on how cheating players are caught and dealt with by the floor.

Again, this was originally a brick and mortar discussion.

Garland

Re: Defense against the squeeze play...
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you felt there was a strong possibility of collusion, then leave, or request a seat change (it's usually ok if you clear it with the players, yeah?). That said...

Another 2p2'er (Bdaddy) and I were once accused of the same thing. He was sitting on my right and every time it was folded to Bdaddy in the CO or on the button and he opened, I happened to have a hand that was likely ahead of his. And we never went to SD. After one player started barking at us (this was the 3rd or 4th time this happened over the course of an hour), I showed a flopped bottom two pair and he showed a flopped top-bottom pair. And I folded to his flop 5-bet.

That gentleman no longer made any comments. Point is, I think it's difficult to correctly suspect collusion in a short game just because the two people know each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: seat change. No, it wasn't ok even if cleared by players. It was enforced by both the dealer and the floor.

In your case, it was suspicious to raise/4-bet/fold to a 5-bet simply because it's something that is "never" seen in live play. I can honestly say I've only seen it happen once in live play in the last 4 years, and I've played a lot of live poker in the last 4 years.

It's never difficult to suspect collusion. It is, however, difficult to correctly prove collusion. And even the appearance of possible collusion is very, very bad for the game.

Thanks for your thoughts,

Garland

Re: Defense against the squeeze play...
 

I pm'ed this to Garland as the thread seemed closed, but he suggested I post it here. My two cents:

I don't play this high, but my general advice if that if you suspect collusion, just get up. Not because it's happening for sure or they have an advantage, but because they have gotten in your head and you're likely to play less than optimally against them. If I'm ever uncomfortable at the table, I change games, tables or call it a night.

Re: Defense against the squeeze play...
 

[ QUOTE ]
...just get up. Not because it's happening for sure or they have an advantage, but because they have gotten in your head and you're likely to play less than optimally against them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is really solid advice imo. Thanks for posting that.

Re: Defense against the squeeze play...
 

[ QUOTE ]
(1) SB sees an above average hand and action fold to the button. Before button acts, SB taps button’s foot to signal to raise with any two, so she can 3-bet.


[/ QUOTE ]
In case of real collusion SB would tap buttons foot to fold and leave him head up with you . Please understand that if they are on the same bankroll and SB has QQ or KK then by shoving buttons 2-4 extra bets into the pot he is making your call a lot more profitable and much less incorrect.

Re: Defense against the squeeze play...
 

I am not one who thinks there is rampant collusion around but is this couple both about 30ish, tall, and look like they could be brother and sister? He often wears a Yankkee hat. These two are definately shady. I once saw a 20/40 game break immediately when they both sat down.

Re: Defense against the squeeze play...
 

i'm assuming this is bay 101. if u are asian, you can hear people pretty blatantly talking about colluding in this game and the bigger games. just get up and leave. sometimes the floor has been told about certain teams multiple times. it doesn't seem to usually lead to anything, but if you have a suspicion, tell the floor. just make sure to qualify your statement with i'm not sure. maybe they'll do something eventually

Re: Defense against the squeeze play...
 

[ QUOTE ]
i'm assuming this is bay 101. if u are asian, you can hear people pretty blatantly talking about colluding in this game and the bigger games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because being Asian means you of course speak and understand some kind of Universal Asian Language?

Can you be more specific about what type of collusion is being discussed (or do you not speak UAL)?

Re: Defense against the squeeze play...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i'm assuming this is bay 101. if u are asian, you can hear people pretty blatantly talking about colluding in this game and the bigger games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because being Asian means you of course speak and understand some kind of Universal Asian Language?

Can you be more specific about what type of collusion is being discussed (or do you not speak UAL)?

[/ QUOTE ]

right after i graduated i played mid limits in the bay area for like 6 months and got to know some players sort of well and others better. i'm young, don't look like a narc, and get along pretty well w/ most kinds of people so sometimes, an older guy would tell me to avoid a certain team or a certain player or to be aware of who was chimp dumping during tournaments. that kind of thing. one dealer i knew's boyfriend would openly talk to me about working w/ people in the 40-80 at bay 101. i have other similar stories but no i don't think i'll get into more specifics than that.

it's not just that i'm asian and some of the teams colluding are as well. I suppose it's that i was around a lot of different people and they let things slip b/c i speak a little mandarin and broken cantonese and never repeat anything to anybody.

Re: Defense against the squeeze play...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I kept getting 6 and 8 highs in my BB while shorthanded, and the button would never fold if folded to him, I would much like the SB to continually 3 bet, because it makes my decision 100% easier. The only reason you are asking this is because they showed up together and have been seen talking to each other.

If it was two random people, you would just let it go as an aggressive shorthanded game.

But again, if you ever feel the integrity of the game is in question, it is best just to get up and leave. No reason to cause a scene, and insult others, just in case nothing wrong was going on. Go play 20 for awhile or go home...no big deal, the game will be there tomorrow.

[/ QUOTE ]

But what if I actually got a "marginal" hand? Even to a SB 3-bet? Say Q9s? Now I might cap it, but I'm probably going against at least one real hand, and they are both calling so they can work together against me post-flop. (This is, of course, theoretical as it never got to post-flop).

If I opt to just call 2 more bets, SB can opt to signal to button to raise again because SB is re-raising for value.

But you're probably right. I should probably opt to go home rather than say anything in case I'm wrong. I'm just thinking ahead like I usually do: "What should I do if I encounter them again and again?" I don't have too much experience with cheating (well, at least that I know of). I'm looking for insight on how cheating players are caught and dealt with by the floor.

Again, this was originally a brick and mortar discussion.

Garland

[/ QUOTE ]

These people obviously suck, your read is inconsistent because this is a terrible way to collude. You can destroy them playing one against two in limit hold'em against bad players. Play the best hand. Don't fold it. If it looks like they are trying to keep you in a hand and milk you, it will probably be extremely obvious, so you can fold those. Most likely they will just try to fold you out on the flop with trash.

Q9s isn't even borderline for me. I'm playing with a lot worse than that. And if they're raise/3-betting any two, why am I against one "real hand"??? If by real-hand you mean king-high, then yeah.

If you want to discuss how to play against good colluders, that's probably more interesting though. But good colluders don't put in 6 SB blind, to steal 1.

Re: Defense against the squeeze play...
 

Anyone I know--

I'll lay 2-1 on up to $50 that it was TT, and not RR, who moved this thread from B&M. No bet if it was some other mod. Also no bet if you've seen an explanation somewhere making it clear who did it; you're on your honor to be just making a judgment with the information here. (Which is why this bet's restricted to people I know enough to trust.)

PM or reply here to take me up on this.

All my best,

--Nate

Re: Defense against the squeeze play...
 

[ QUOTE ]
If they are playing any two on your blind, they are throwing you money. To make even more money, decide in your head how much action it will take on your part to make them fold. If you think you know this, you will make even more monies.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
And if they're raise/3-betting any two, why am I against one "real hand"??? If by real-hand you mean king-high, then yeah.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I'm misunderstood. They aren't doing the button raise/SB 3-bet thing every time it's folded to the button. They are at the very least selective about their cards, not playing "any two". In actuality, it has folded to button on several occasions, and button had elected to fold and then SB and myself agreed to chop. Remember, this is short-handed and it often gets chopped, so there are far more orbits than your standard full ring game. So when I say "4 times in 45 minutes", it means there are probably just as many times it didn't happen. Now when it does get bet/3-bet to me in the BB there's a more than decent chance of at least a hand out there.

Sorry if the original post confused you.

Garland

Re: Defense against the squeeze play...
 

[ QUOTE ]
it has folded to button on several occasions, and button had elected to fold and then SB and myself agreed to chop.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is almost certainly costing you more than the raise 3/bet sequences. I can't imagine anyone chopping 3-4 handed.

Re: Defense against the squeeze play...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it has folded to button on several occasions, and button had elected to fold and then SB and myself agreed to chop.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is almost certainly costing you more than the raise 3/bet sequences. I can't imagine anyone chopping 3-4 handed.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was 6-handed a lot of time (depends with a walker or two), the rake was $3 vs $1 drop with no flop. In addition, the woman in SB was by no means a pushover. My edge over her heads up in the blinds was miniscule at best.

I don't chop 5-handed or less, when the rake becomes only $1 and they take the $1 regardless if we see a flop or not.

Garland

Re: Defense against the squeeze play...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i'm assuming this is bay 101. if u are asian, you can hear people pretty blatantly talking about colluding in this game and the bigger games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because being Asian means you of course speak and understand some kind of Universal Asian Language?

Can you be more specific about what type of collusion is being discussed (or do you not speak UAL)?

[/ QUOTE ]

right after i graduated i played mid limits in the bay area for like 6 months and got to know some players sort of well and others better. i'm young, don't look like a narc, and get along pretty well w/ most kinds of people so sometimes, an older guy would tell me to avoid a certain team or a certain player or to be aware of who was chimp dumping during tournaments. that kind of thing. one dealer i knew's boyfriend would openly talk to me about working w/ people in the 40-80 at bay 101. i have other similar stories but no i don't think i'll get into more specifics than that.

it's not just that i'm asian and some of the teams colluding are as well. I suppose it's that i was around a lot of different people and they let things slip b/c i speak a little mandarin and broken cantonese and never repeat anything to anybody.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is pretty scary stuff.

or at least it would be if I hadn't played a few hundred hours in 20, 40, and 100 games at Bay101 and never suspected anything. I'm young, non-asian, laggy, prefer shorthanded, and listen to headphones real loud so if they were ever to try and collude against somebody it would prob be me.

Re: Defense against the squeeze play...
 

[ QUOTE ]


I think I'm misunderstood. They aren't doing the button raise/SB 3-bet thing every time it's folded to the button. They are at the very least selective about their cards, not playing "any two". In actuality, it has folded to button on several occasions, and button had elected to fold and then SB and myself agreed to chop. Remember, this is short-handed and it often gets chopped, so there are far more orbits than your standard full ring game. So when I say "4 times in 45 minutes", it means there are probably just as many times it didn't happen. Now when it does get bet/3-bet to me in the BB there's a more than decent chance of at least a hand out there.

Garland

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, sorry, I understand now. This situation sucks. Gotta tell the floor I guess. I would leave, too, (potentially breaking the game, it sounds like), and tell the floor why you are leaving.

Honestly with cheating as a giant unknown, I sometimes wonder how it's possible to make money playing cards. The only evidence is the empirical evidence of actual winrate, nothing else makes sense. I think the biggest things in our favor are:

(1) That if someone is smart and disciplined enough to cheat and not get caught, they are good enough to beat the games without cheating.

(2) Cheaters will be bad players who overestimate their own ability, and they will think that are winning players without their partners. In those games they will be big fish and give their money back. Even if they are with their partners, they will move up and move up and get Peter Principled.

(3) If you're going to cheat, why pick Limit Hold'em as your game?

Re: Defense against the squeeze play...
 

[ QUOTE ]

Honestly with cheating as a giant unknown, I sometimes wonder how it's possible to make money playing cards.


[/ QUOTE ]

You need to get out to Bay101. I don't know if there is cheating or not, but if there is it doesn't seem to matter a whole lot since there are so many bad players giving away money.

Re: Defense against the squeeze play...
 

[ QUOTE ]
(3) If you're going to cheat, why pick Limit Hold'em as your game?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it has to do w/ the fact that there are very few no limit games in the Bay Area (most are spread limit maxing out at 200), and those few games are either very small, or big enough that the player pool is relatively small

Re: Defense against the squeeze play...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Honestly with cheating as a giant unknown, I sometimes wonder how it's possible to make money playing cards.


[/ QUOTE ]You need to get out to Bay101. I don't know if there is cheating or not, but if there is it doesn't seem to matter a whole lot since there are so many bad players giving away money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that's the thing. I don't play live all that much, but I do sometimes and do much better than online even accounting for player quality. But if it weren't for the actual results I wouldn't think playing live is a good idea.

Put another way, I only moved up in stakes once, when I was on vacation (it was 15/30 and 30/60, I don't play that high). I played maybe 16 hours and finished up $900. I also found a marked ace at a table filled with "regulars". Should I find this trip encouraging or discouraging?

If it weren't for the actual results...


[ QUOTE ]

I think it has to do w/ the fact that there are very few no limit games in the Bay Area (most are spread limit maxing out at 200), and those few games are either very small, or big enough that the player pool is relatively small

[/ QUOTE ]

good point

Thoughts and results...
 

Thoughts:Look, I didn't mean to create a lot of paranoia for live players around the Bay Area. This was the first and only suspicion of "collusion with intent" I've encountered during live play in 4 years.

What do I mean about "collusion with intent"? By my definition, it means betting and raising with the intent of squeezing out an opponent. There are a lot of instances at say Artichoke Joes $15/$30 with Chinese regulars where once two close friends get heads up after playing their cards hard (and with reasonable hands), they stop betting against each other and check it down to showdown. Is it collusion? It certainly has the appearance of collusion especially to any newcomer or novice who was involved in the hand, but it's not "collusion with intent". Is it bad for the game? That's a whole other discussion.

And let’s say there were some sort of subtle collusion/cheating I haven’t detected. The games are so good to me, that I consider it as part of the price of playing, like the rake.

To help alleviate some concerns here’s what happened:

Result:

It occurred at Garden City and not Bay 101.

At the 4th time this bet/3-bet play occurred, I actually said “I’m starting to suspect something.” out loud. If nothing else happened, I would have left on my next big blind.

She said “I’ll show.” They played their hand out and even when there was no showdown, button flipped over a suited JT and SB showed Axo. At least it showed she played her marginal strong hands hard against a steal attempt, and it seemed consistent with the other hands they played in that hour. I think if you see a type of play that isn’t the norm (bet/3-bet is normal once, but not 4 times within an hour) bells start to go off.

To Nate: What’s the significance of TT or RR moving this thread from B&M to here is.

Thanks for everyone's input.

Garland

Re: Thoughts and results...
 

[ QUOTE ]
To Nate: What’s the significance of TT or RR moving this thread from B&M to here is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Garland--

No significance; just something to bet on. Figured it might give me something to sweat, and I'd have been a huge favorite besides.

--Nate

Re: Defense against the squeeze play...
 

[ QUOTE ]
In addition, the woman in SB was by no means a pushover. My edge over her heads up in the blinds was miniscule at best.


[/ QUOTE ]

No way. Even if she plays better than you, you have the button every single time. As long as she's not a much much better player than you, you should have a decent edge over her in the blinds.

Re: Defense against the squeeze play...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In addition, the woman in SB was by no means a pushover. My edge over her heads up in the blinds was miniscule at best.


[/ QUOTE ]

No way. Even if she plays better than you, you have the button every single time. As long as she's not a much much better player than you, you should have a decent edge over her in the blinds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering and factoring in the rake, the edge is greatly over-estimated, even with position. Anyhow, the point is moot. I always opt chop with anyone as long as the no-flop rake is different than the flop rake. There are other reasons I like to chop in the blinds, but that goes beyond the scope of this thread.

Garland

Re: Thoughts and results...
 

Garland:

Definitely a tough spot to be in. Just be cognizant of their play and if it gets too out of line say something to the table. If it continues--say something to the floor and quit.

Out of curiosity, what did the man and women look like? I have played with a couple who travel who play exactly like this? Was she hispanic looking--fairly attractive? Just curious? If it is who I think it is--I can probably shed some light on their play, as I have many hours with them.

BM

Re: Thoughts and results...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Garland:

Definitely a tough spot to be in. Just be cognizant of their play and if it gets too out of line say something to the table. If it continues--say something to the floor and quit.

Out of curiosity, what did the man and women look like? I have played with a couple who travel who play exactly like this? Was she hispanic looking--fairly attractive? Just curious? If it is who I think it is--I can probably shed some light on their play, as I have many hours with them.

BM

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm holding back their physical descriptions on a public forum because I don't want to unfairly slander two innocent players, nor do I want to cause more of an uproar than there already is. As far as I'm concerned, I'm fine with them, I wouldn't go out of my way to avoid them (given the table has enough bad players to compensate) and the issue is over and done with.

Garland