Being "pot-committed"

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
so what you are saying is if the betting had been $100 all in, $100 raise all in, $50 reraise all in, = $550 pot, you would have been pot committed to call if you had AKo and $150, even though you had no money committed in the pot up to that point?



[/ QUOTE ]

A situation more equivilent but less realistic is the following.

The player on your left goes all in for $150 (for the sake of this example, assume that he would do this with the same hand he had in the real $300 max story, whatever that hand was)

It is folded to you. Before you can act, a very generous man walking by drops $425 into the pot (I forgot the exact number in the real example).

Now, it is $150 to you and the pot is $575. You haven't put any money in yet. You have AKo.


I think many people use the term 'pot-committed' incorrectly. They use logic like 'I already put $50 in that pot therefore I should stay in with a weaker hand. I'm not giving up on that $50 of mine in there.'

The fact is, the money in the pot is the money in the pot. It makes absolutely no difference (assuming similar chances to win) where the money came from as far as your call or fold is concerned.

I don't really see why people use the term at all honestly.

Either you call because you have the pot odds to do so or you fold because you don't.

Why can't it just be...

Dude 1: Why'd you call with your A9 on that last hand?
Dude 2: I had the odds.


-Jman28

[Mike Haven]

I think many people use the term 'pot-committed' incorrectly. They use logic like 'I already put $50 in that pot therefore I should stay in with a weaker hand. I'm not giving up on that $50 of mine in there.'

Apart from the word "incorrectly", I agree.

I was trying to define how the common phrase "pot committed" is used, and I believe you are right in that people say it in the circumstances you describe, even though in a perfect world perhaps they should not act in that manner, as you go on to explain. However, because it is used commonly thus, that has become, if, indeed, it was not always, its definition, in my opinion.

I don't really see why people use the term at all honestly. Either you call because you have the pot odds to do so or you fold because you don't.

Agreed.

However, people do use the term, and therefore it has a common definition.

If you look up "commit" in the dictionary, it means "pledged". If you think of the phrase as being "pot pledged" it is easier to understand how people mean and use the term: their earlier action in the pot has made them promise themselves they will see the hand through to the end, no matter what happens.

Whether they should see the hand through to the end because of pot odds is irrelevant to the promise, the commitment, they have made themselves, right or wrong.

[PrayingMantis]

You are "pot-commited" (in a NL tourney perspective here), when the combination of certain factors (or some of them), makes folding (where you are in a spot where have to decide, usually, whether to call all-in), a mistake.

These are, roughly, the factors: a) the hand you hold (in some cases) b) your stack's size C) your opponent's stack d) the pot e) the board (in some cases) f) your read of your opponent (in some cases. This includes also his read on you, of course).

In specific situations, some bubble consideration are also a part of the picture, and could make folding better, even if you are "pot commited" in some normal aspects.

I will add that, IMO, this term is used many times in confusing and inconsistent ways. I'm not even sure if what I wrote here is the best definition, but I still havn't seen one yet.

[scmcd]

The only thing I would add is that the times you are pot committed in a ring game are very different then the times you are pot committed in a tournament. In TPfAP Skalansky points out that some positive EV bets or calls should not be made in a tournament as it increases your chances of getting knocked out, espeacially when another situation with greater EV is coming up. If you are the best player in the tourney, or even a pretty good player, you should avoid coin flip battles, and 4 to 1 shots with 4.1 to 1 pot odds when it involves a significant portion of your stack. However in a ring game it is perfectly alright to make the call because you can just reach back into your pocket for more money.
You are pot committed in a tournament when your stack is short (about 10xs the BB) and any raise by you would leave you with so few chips that the odds would justify calling any reraise. In this situation you should recognize that you are going to be pot committed and push all your chips in first, putting maximum pressure on your opponents. Bob Ciaffone suggests that anytime you are going to raise more than half of your chips you should go ahead and push all in, as if you get called you will be pot committed.

[TomCollins]

Being pot comitted is when you make a fishy call and put a terrible bad beat on someone. When they ask "What the *($* did you call for?", you can reply "I was pot comitted!"

[Jman28]

[ QUOTE ]
However, people do use the term, and therefore it has a common definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

I stand corrected. Allow me to restate what I said?

'pot commited' is a term, with a definition as you described.

I think it's a term that should never be used, except by bad poker players. (I'm not saying that good players never use it. I'm just saying I think they shouldn't)

-Jman28

[bmedwar]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's a term that should never be used, except by bad poker players. (I'm not saying that good players never use it. I'm just saying I think they shouldn't)

[/ QUOTE ]

TJ Cloutier uses it.

[sofere]

The way I see the term "pot-committed" is that you would be getting proper odds to call ANY bet. So, while you may not want to be all-in on a particular hand, if someone pushes you all in, it would be +EV to call.