Pot committed

[eastbay]

I hear this phrase a lot but it has never been really clear to me what it means, if anything.

I hear people at the tables bitching about how they are "committed" and then proceed to call off the rest of their chips with 9 high, or whatever.

I suspect this idea may be misunderstood or overused.

I don't ever consider myself committed. I always weigh my chances wit the chips I have left vs. the chances I have of making the call and taking the pot. I'll lay down with 600 chips in the pot and 200 left if I think my chances are better with the 200 chips than of taking the pot. I don't do it often, because I try not to get into that situation, but I do think it is the right decision sometimes.

People seem to worry about how many of "their" chips are in the pot. Well, it doesn't matter. Once you bet, those chips aren't yours anymore. Each decision has to be made on its own merits, and chips in the pot never have your name on them.

Thoughts? When and why do people consider themselves "committed"?

eastbay

[Irieguy]

Pot committed means that you have bet enough into a pot sizeable enough to warrant a call for the rest of your chips based on pot odds alone.

It has nothing to do with the fact that your chips are "already in the pot." It has to do with the price you would be getting to call with the rest of your chips.

For example: 4 players left with 2000 each. Blinds are 100/200 and you raise to 1000 from the button with KQs. SB goes all-in for 2K and BB folds. Now there is 3200 in chips in the pot, and it would cost 1000 to call. You are almost certainly behind, but getting 3.2 to 1 on a call you are "pot committed."

The only difference between the terms "pot committed" and "getting proper pot odds" is the implied condition that you have already bet and will be all-in with a call when using the term pot committed.

The funny part is that usually when somebody says they are pot committed, the actually aren't. They are usually making a bad call for way to many chips into too small a pot for it to be correct. But people, in general, love to find an excuse to call.

Irieguy

[Phill S]

only time i consider im committed is if i have a good hand that could make me a winner, a big pot, feel like im behind but not sure enough that i can fold my hand.

i think one thing thatmakes sence is the expression i picked up somewhere "you are never pot committed if you are sure youll lose".

this is to say you either need a valid hand or a draw to one (over cards perhaps, or a flush/straight draw) and also enough justification for calling (sizable pot or fair pot odds).

Phill

[Cleveland Guy]

You can also be pot committed this way.


Blinds at 150/300. You raise 3xBB from late position with T8s. You have a big stack, and might be going for a steal.

So you raised to 900. All fold to the SB who goes all in for 1250. BB folds.

So now it's to you for another 350 into the pot of about 2000. YOu are almost assuredly behind, and bemoaning the call knowing your behind, but you are "Pot Committed" so you call the 350.

[smoore]

I went for a bald steal late in a SnG on Stars with my 'uge stack and T3s. I would have never pulled this move had I noticed that the guy immediately behind me had only $150 more than my 3xBB raise. Long story short, he pushes with something like KJo, I call the last 150 in about a 1500 pot after the limpers before me fold and win the hand. You should have seen this guy cuss, I actually felt a little bad. On the plus side, the rest of the players started playing against my raises again. Only one person at the table seemed to understand that I was well and truly pot committed and backed my decision up.

[PrayingMantis]

A nice recent discussion from the probability forum:

Being pot-commited

[Mikey2k4]

I think the lesson may be more to be aware of stack sizes, and how a short stack will go all-in on your raise, which is small in relation to your stack, but large compared to his. As such, you essentially force yourself to call his all-in, even on a steal. (The lesson is more for other readers, not you - since you already mentioned that you hadn't noticed his stack size until after you had bet.)

You really were getting odds to call, though - I hope no one argues that. (You're a 2:1 underdog versus this particular hand)

a bit more interesting is how T3s is 45.7% winner against a random hand

[smoore]

[ QUOTE ]
a bit more interesting is how T3s is 45.7% winner against a random hand

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I had no idea it was that good against random. I did go to twodimes after the hand and figured out that I was only about 2:1 against.

You are definitely correct, that was a lesson learned for me: Don't read 2+2 late in a SnG, pay attention to the damn game!

[Gramps]

I think people will sometimes use the term as a cop out when emotionally they don't want to fold when played back at. It's kind of embarassing to get caught with your hand in the proverbial cookie jar, I think it's easier for people to make a "justified" call than a disciplined fold like they often should.

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
A nice recent discussion from the probability forum:

Being pot-commited

[/ QUOTE ]

Please ignore the dim-witted post that started the thread. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]