Pot Committed is a highly overrated concept.

[jackaaron]

Wrong or right? I think in NLHE tournies, it's highly overrated. Let's say you have KK, and you raise, and a very loose player calls. From experience, you know he'll play Ax to the bitter end on any raise. The flop is all small cards, you bet big again, and he calls. The turn is an ace, and you pick up a tell that tells you he has hit his ace. Despite whatever you choose to do (check, bet big, whatever) he goes all in, and at this moment you are considered pot-committed. I've seen people even say these words in this situation, "I know you have the ace, but I'm pot-committed." And, they call. Ha! Very overrated concept. Something to paint an overall picture with maybe, but nothing that should make you call when you know you're beat.

[PrayingMantis]

OK this was discussed many times on different forums, but in any case, being "pot-commited" is a way to describe certain situations in which no-matter what happens from a certain point in the hand to the end of it - your not going to fold. There can be many reasons for being "pot-commited", but you're example is clearly not a good one, since if you know with _very high confidence_ that your opponent has hit his ace, and you don't get good enough odds to redraw (when compared to your amount of certainty), then folding is obviously better. It's all about the price you're getting.

People very often use the term "pot-commited" in a wrong manner, but there are certainly cases in which you are "pot-commited", and folding is a clear mistake no matter what the action/board is - this is especially true when playing short/very short stacks, and specifically on-line, where you have generally a limited amount of reads.

[jackaaron]

You use the word "you" a lot in your response. However, you're not going to find me calling someone when I know I'm beat because I'm pot-committed. I see no reason to have an absolute rule like this. Poker is situational.

[unfrgvn]

I think your defination of pot commited is wrong, which is why you think the concept is useless. If the pot is $1000 after the flop, and the turn is an ace, and I KNOW you have an ace, but you can only bet $10 more am I not pot commited? I will catch my K on the river 5% of the time,so I'm getting 100-1 on the call for a 20-1 shot. If you can bet $20 more I'm still getting 50-1. You have to bet more than $55 for me to be taking the worst of it. If the problem changes to 20% of the time you are bluffing then I have to call a much bigger bet, probably 3-4 hundred provided it sets you all in.

I do think people think they are pot commited when they are not, and also fold hands when they should be pot committed.

[45suited]

A very good player just gave you a well thought out response to your post. He was not attacking you. I'm sure that he understands the nuances of the game far beter than either of us.

Try not to piss off the smart guys on the forum. Be happy that they are responding to our posts.

What you are describing is not what I think pot-committed is. To me pot committed means mathmatics forces me to call.

I have 200 left when the pot is 1000 and I have a river shot at a flush draw.

Heads up preflop pot is now 1000 and I have 400 left.

etc etc etc.

[ldavidjm]

One thing I've learned is you never "know" you're beaten till he actually flips his cards over. I've been suprised before when I "knew" I was beat and villan held random bluffs, overplayed hands, etc. etc.

At a certain point, especially in tournies, you've invested so much of your stack in a hand that you will be so crippled by losing that you really don't have a chance to come back. At that point barring some amazing read its better to just call and hope to be suprised.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
You use the word "you" a lot in your response. However, you're not going to find me calling someone when I know I'm beat because I'm pot-committed. I see no reason to have an absolute rule like this. Poker is situational.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. Did you read my reply?

In any case, it's not about "when I know I'm beat" or something like that, it's about the price your getting. That's why there are certainly cases in which you are indeed pot-commited, and can't fold since the pot-odds are simply good enough. You can be behind, it doesn't matter, as long as the price you're getting is good enough, and often it is when playing short/very short stacks.

And yes, people often use the term "pot-commited" without understanding its meaning and uses, but so what?

[Rosencrantz1]

I actually am not sure that any of these are exactly what is meant by pot committed.

My sense is that pot committed means that so much of your stack has gone into the pot that you simply can't fold, regardless of the situation, because you would be left with too few chips to do anything.

In other words, there aren't drawing odds that would make you fold because even a one-outer is worth the shot since folding leaves you so incredibly short stacked.

[viennagreen]

[ QUOTE ]
you're not going to find me calling someone when I know I'm beat

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't think we'll find you making a lot of money in SNGs either.

of course poker is situational---- can't you think of a variety of situations where it's foolish to fold when you know that you're behind, specifically because you're getting great odds?

[viennagreen]

i don't think you have to have a large portion of your stack involved to be "pot committed".

it just means that you are committed to the pot. Say you are big stack and big blind. short stack has 2BB's left--- he knows that you will call his all-in for only 1BB more, because you're pot-committed--- there's nothing in the world that you would fold.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
I think your defination of pot commited is wrong, which is why you think the concept is useless. If the pot is $1000 after the flop, and the turn is an ace, and I KNOW you have an ace, but you can only bet $10 more am I not pot commited? I will catch my K on the river 5% of the time,so I'm getting 100-1 on the call for a 20-1 shot. If you can bet $20 more I'm still getting 50-1. You have to bet more than $55 for me to be taking the worst of it. If the problem changes to 20% of the time you are bluffing then I have to call a much bigger bet, probably 3-4 hundred provided it sets you all in.

I do think people think they are pot commited when they are not, and also fold hands when they should be pot committed.

[/ QUOTE ]

to OP: read the above carefully...it is important to note that one can never "really" know to an exact certainty what their opponent is holding. In your example, I doubt you are even 90% sure he has an A...that should be the absolute CEILING! If there's t1000 in the pot and I have 100 left, I dont even need to think about my redraws on the river because I cannot be 90% or more certain that Villain has an ace.

[bradha]

I would agree that Pot Committed is much more important concept in Limit games and Limit tournies than in NLHE. In Limit Hold'em it is common for pots to get big enough relative to the maximum bet that folding is definitely -EV compared to calling down. In NLHE, the absence of betting limits means that "Pot Committed" usually turns into "All-in". You can make guesses as to whether your NLHE opponent is mentally committed to the pot, but the real test is whether all the chips end up in the middle.

[mosdef]

your example is an example of mathematically being pot-committed, i.e. you're mathematically obligated to call because you're probability of winning against his range (any two cards) is such that you expect to win chips.

the more contentious issue is when on, say, the turn someone makes a bet where you think you don't have the odds to make a chip +EV call, but you call anyway because folding would leave you so short stacked that it would be -$EV because you would have such a small chance of making the money.