The "I had xxx invested in the pot so I had to call...." mindset

[Ghazban]

I hear people saying things like "Well, I had $40 in the pot, so I had to call the $40 more" all the time in casinos and I even see it showing up in 2+2 posts now. Its totally irrelevant, isn't it?

Clearly, how much you've put in has an effect on how big the pot is, but whether you put it in or magical pixies conjured it out of thin air is meaningless, right? I've always thought the important thing was the size of the pot, not how much you personally put into it but I keep hearing justification for certain plays that is based on how much of the pot you put in.

[Phishy McFish]

It is the pot size that they are indirectly referring to. It doesn't make the play that got them there correct.......but if you have only one out to win on the river.....and you know you only have one out........but you have already put in $99 of your $100 you're still getting correct pot odds to call.

If I make a steal play late in a MTT with Kx suited and someone comes over he top of me to go all in with the amount for me to call being very close or less than my original bet that unless I think I'm dominated the call is right (math wise)...AK = no call, but even knowing he has AQs would = call.

<waiting to be educated>
<hoping to be validated>

[jack spade23]

Do you mean just simply saying "well i went this far, might as well call" or "ive got pot odds to call with these two suited cards, also im in position"? Cause bad players use the first, and good ones the second.

[Ghazban]

I'm talking about when people play differently based on if they called a raise preflop or not totally independently of the pot odds. Its obvious to me that pot odds are the only thing that matter, not whether or not you put money in but its a concept that seems to elude a lot of people, including people who post in the strategy forums of this board (no, not everybody, but I see this fallacious thinking at least once a day).

[jack spade23]

Oh yea, i know what you're talking about. There are loose players who will keep playing simply because the "villain" raised preflop. Sometimes it has to do with not wanting to look like you got bluffed out of a hand, which is obviously not the right play.

[BradL]

Those justifications are moronic. Potsize is the relevant factor, and btw i prefer it when magic pixies build the pot.

-Brad

[Ghazban]

The more magic pixies I see, the more pot-committed I become. Do you see why?

[BradL]

You've got the right idea, just to clarify...

If you are calling for pot-odds you are correct, if you are calling simply because you invested money prior then you are incorrect. Interestingly most times those who say "ive already put this much in, might as well put more," have the correct pot odds to call but the reasoning that got them there was incorrect. Most of the incorrect play based on this logic is in NL/PL poker, especially when beaten on the river.

-Brad

[BradL]

O yes.

-Brad

[SeattleJake]

Please see my post here:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Number=1701753

I'm really starting to disagree with this point. Following the logic, it would seem that if I'm playing any hand in the top half, then I could put most of my stack in preflop, and no matter what I'll likely have pot-odds to call postflop. I think that when you calculate pot-size, at the very least you need to not include the money you've put in.

[parachute]

[ QUOTE ]
Following the logic, it would seem that if I'm playing any hand in the top half, then I could put most of my stack in preflop, and no matter what I'll likely have pot-odds to call postflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's right. If you go all in except for a dollar pre-flop, you will always have pot odds to put in the extra dollar on the flop if someone bets. That doesn't mean that your preflop action was correct; it means that after your bonehead preflop play, calling with your last dollar is the best you can do for your flop action.

If doing A makes B the best choice later on, it doesn't follow that doing A was a good idea.

This is what this argument feels like:

Us: If you're losing by two goals with a minute left, you should pull your goalie.

You: Following the logic, it would seem that I should give up two goals on purpose, and no matter what it will be correct to pull my goalie.

In reality, if you play the top 50% of hands, people who are playing the top 20% of hands will take all your money.

[ QUOTE ]
I think that when you calculate pot-size, at the very least you need to not include the money you've put in.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is still not correct.

[Lawrence Ng]

[ QUOTE ]
I hear people saying things like "Well, I had $40 in the pot, so I had to call the $40 more" all the time in casinos and I even see it showing up in 2+2 posts now. Its totally irrelevant, isn't it?


[/ QUOTE ]

Pot size matters, not how much is invested.

Lawrence.