Defend against squeeze stat

[Pokerlife]

Hi,

not sure if this is the correct forum or if this questions has been asked before...did a quick search and couldnt find the info I wanted.

What exactly is the defend vs squeeze stat? Lets say CO opens and BTN calls and SB 3bets/squeezes and CO
- calls
- folds
- 4bets

I imagine that call and 4bet are a defend and fold not...I was just wondering cause in my DB (I play 6max) the vast majority of players have a defend vs squeeze under 35%...if I had to guess...for players I have 1k hands at least 95% do not defend against squeezes at all and I wanna make sure that I use this stat right. So in the case above...if Co opens ten times in that spot and the same scenario happens and he calls twice, 4bets twice and folded 6 times the defend vs squeeze stat would show 40%?

Is this stat only for the opener or does it say something about the overcaller/BTN too?

[Pokerlife]

No one? Cleary the developers have read this and can look up the definitions and answer the questions :-)

[Patvs]

Our definition of "defend" is to simply: NOT FOLD.

So in your example it's call + 4bet, affecting the initial raiser (not the overcaller).

[Pokerlife]

thank you very much sir...at first I thought there might be some mistake cause literally every player I have 1k hands or more on do not defend more than 30%...most of them even only 20% even if they fold to 3bets only 32% but I guess thats just how it is right? I mean...having 5.4k hands on someone and he is folding to 3bets 32% but only defending against a squeeze 20%.

[Pokerlife]

Can someone of the HM guys please get back here and post an exact definition of the defend vs squeeze stat.

This stat does not appear for EP and MP but does appear for SB and BB....can you please explain to me how the BB can defend his raise against a squeeze cause right now it seems that the defend vs squeeze stat show something else but not what was written above by Patvs.

Thanks

[Patvs]

Defend vs Squeezer:

Pct of time player defends (VPIP) when facing a single raiser and one or more callers.



Player Defends, as always, by voluntarily putting $ in pot when facing an opponent's preflop action - in this case, when facing a single raised pot with 1+ callers: Player Defends by 3Betting (Squeezing) OR Cold Calling.

[Azalin]

Defend vs Squeezer:

Pct of time player defends (VPIP) when facing a single raiser and one or more callers.



Player Defends, as always, by voluntarily putting $ in pot when facing an opponent's preflop action - in this case, when facing a single raised pot with 1+ callers: Player Defends by 3Betting (Squeezing) OR Cold Calling.



Sorry I dont understand this either.

I thought the previous explanation was the "normal" one but as the previous guy said this stat does not appear for EP,MP but it does appear for the blinds.

To make it clear (6max game)

EP raises, CO Call, BB Squeezes (3bets)

If now EP does not fold (call or 4bets) that means that he defends against SQZ and that is the stat we would like (and I thought existed). Am I wrong in that assumption?

Next question.

If the above are correct then what BB (or SB) defends against SQZ means? How can BB open preflop then have a caller and then a 3rd person SQZ him AND he defends to that (by 4betting or calling) ? That simply cannot happen except perhaps in the following example?

BTN limps SB limps BB raises BTN calls SB reraises BB does not fold

If thats what the "defend against squeeze sta" does if we are talking for the BB position then this is simply is wrong/not needed.

The definition of the Squeeze should be the following:

"One player Raises First In, another player calls the raise, a third player makes a reraise" hence the "defend to the squeeze" stat broken down by position should be referring to the percentage of time the FIRST player does NOT fold.

In HEM1 there are two stats: "defend to the SQZ (raiser)" and "defend to the SQZ (caller)". Does the second stat exist in HEM2?

[Patvs]

The vs squeezer stats, that exist for all positions are:
Pct of time player defends (VPIP) when facing a single raiser and one or more callers.

No actual squeeze has occurred yet.

So TOT Defend vs Squeezer basically is:
(Did Squeeze + called when you Could Squeeze) / (Did Squeeze + called when you Could Squeeze + Fold)


Alternative name suggestion: (trying to get rid of “squeezer”)

TOT Defend when Could Squeeze




--



I understand you would actually prefer to have a stat for the following situation:
EP raises, CO Call, BB Squeezes (3bets)
If now EP does not fold (call or 4bets) that means that he defends against SQZ and that is the stat we would like


I'll forward your input to the stats-programmer.

[Stasek]

Defend vs Squeezer:

Pct of time player defends (VPIP) when facing a single raiser and one or more callers.



Player Defends, as always, by voluntarily putting $ in pot when facing an opponent's preflop action - in this case, when facing a single raised pot with 1+ callers: Player Defends by 3Betting (Squeezing) OR Cold Calling.

Is this *really* the definition of defend vs squeezer?
Name of the stat suggest that somebody squeezes and we defend.
Same as defend vs steal (btn/co steals and we defend)

But in your example there is no actual squeezer - just raiser and a caller(s).
Say EP raises, MP calls.
CO, who is next to act has an *opportunity* to squeeze, but not to defend vs squeeze (because squeeze hasn't happened yet)

[uberkuber]

Is this *really* the definition of defend vs squeezer?
Name of the stat suggest that somebody squeezes and we defend.
Same as defend vs steal (btn/co steals and we defend)

But in your example there is no actual squeezer - just raiser and a caller(s).
Say EP raises, MP calls.
CO, who is next to act has an *opportunity* to squeeze, but not to defend vs squeeze (because squeeze hasn't happened yet)

+1

As name suggests, it should be like "defend vs steal".

We need some consistency across stat names.

[Patvs]

Is this *really* the definition of defend vs squeezer?
Name of the stat suggest that somebody squeezes and we defend.



As stated in my previous post, no squeeze has actually happened yet.
It's Percentage of time player defends when facing a single raiser and one or more callers.
He doesn't defend against a "squeeze".

The confusion is between:
vs Sqzr (this is the stat we have)
vs squeeze (this is the stat you want... which will be similar to defend vs steal... a squeeze has actually occurred.. but these still have to be added)

[Stasek]

As stated in my previous post, no squeeze has actually happened yet.
It's Percentage of time player defends when facing a single raiser and one or more callers.
He doesn't defend against a "squeeze".

The confusion is between:
vs Sqzr (this is the stat we have)
vs squeeze (this is the stat you want... which will be similar to defend vs steal... a squeeze has actually occurred.. but these still have to be added)

OK fine.
The label 'sqzr' is confusing.
Better rename it to defend vs raiser+caller(s) or something similar

[Azalin]

OK fine.
The label 'sqzr' is confusing.
Better rename it to defend vs raiser+caller(s) or something similar

+1

[uberkuber]

As stated in my previous post, no squeeze has actually happened yet.
It's Percentage of time player defends when facing a single raiser and one or more callers.
He doesn't defend against a "squeeze".

The confusion is between:
vs Sqzr (this is the stat we have)
vs squeeze (this is the stat you want... which will be similar to defend vs steal... a squeeze has actually occurred.. but these still have to be added)

That doesn't seem to make sense. A Sqzr is the player who performs the squeeze, so in the end, it's the same thing. So if we have a Sqzr, a squeeze has actually occurred also in my mind (and probably in a lot of people's mind).

When you have a raise + a call, you have a potential squeeze situation (which is possibly what you imply), but that seems awkward to defend against such a potential event that didn't occur yet.

[Stasek]

That doesn't seem to make sense. A Sqzr is the player who performs the squeeze, so in the end, it's the same thing. So if we have a Sqzr, a squeeze has actually occurred also in my mind (and probably in a lot of people's mind).

When you have a raise + a call, you have a potential squeeze situation (which is possibly what you imply), but that seems awkward to defend against such a potential event that didn't occur yet.

My thoughts exactly.
What does SQZR stands for if there is no squeeze?
this stat should be named VPIP vs raise+call(s)

[Patvs]

vsSQZR is more like "could squeeze"
Or defend vs raiser+caller(s)

We have a separate vs Squeeze as Caller Fold % stat
% player folds when calling a raise and then facing a sqeeuze

vs Squeeze as Raiser Fold %
% player folds to a squeeze as the initial raiser

These now exist as report stats, but should be added as HUD stats / popups stats in one of the next updates.

[Mr. Peek]

vsSQZR is more like "could squeeze"

LOL, sorry but that doesn't make sense because Sqzr = player who performs a squeeze. It should be renamed as: Defend vs Raiser+Caller(s).

Are you completely sure that definition of Defend vs Sqzr is: Percentage of time player defends when facing a single raiser and one or more callers?

[Singum]

LOL, sorry but that doesn't make sense because Sqzr = player who performs a squeeze. It should be renamed as: Defend vs Raiser+Caller(s).

Are you completely sure that definition of Defend vs Sqzr is: Percentage of time player defends when facing a single raiser and one or more callers?
+1

[biblup]

we have a separate vs squeeze as caller fold % stat
% player folds when calling a raise and then facing a sqeeuze

vs squeeze as raiser fold %
% player folds to a squeeze as the initial raiser

these now exist as report stats, but should be added as hud stats / popups stats in one of the next updates.

all you have to do is add these 2 stats related to squeeze to the hud... Is it that difficult???

[udbrky]

This is all being looked into currently, to make sure all situations we can do are in and correct.