PDA

View Full Version : Being "pot-committed"

ilya
10-02-2004, 11:37 PM
I guess I don't really understand the logic behind this concept. Before the flop, I take it to mean that if someone puts you all-in, you have the odds to call with any two. On the flop and beyond, however, it seems like you almost never have the odds to call with any two. Yet people talk about being pot-committed on the flop and beyond all the time. Would someone be kind enough to point me to a good explanation?
I'm talking about no limit here if that's not obvious.

Thythe
10-03-2004, 03:03 AM
Basic idea is that if say a pot has \$20 in it and the flop comes not very helpful to you. If you only have \$1 left than you are pretty much pot committed no matter what you have (what couldn't you call for 20-1 odds?). That is my understanding of it anyway...

Mike Haven
10-03-2004, 10:52 AM
interesting question

i'm not sure that there's a specific mathematically orientated definition - it's more a situation in a hand where you are not keen to put your last chips in but if someone else bets you "have" to call or raise as you have put so much money in the middle up to that point that it would be "silly" to fold and leave yourself with too few chips to continue to play the game well and with much chance of winning - it has become an all or nothing occasion where if you win, perhaps against the odds, you will be in good shape to continue the game, but if you fold there's little point in continuing - obviously, i am thinking in tournament terms - no doubt the phrase can be used in ring games, but then it would be thought of as being only a relatively nasty pot to lose in the circumstances described

pzhon
10-03-2004, 12:01 PM
People mean different things when they say pot-committed. The following is consistent and meaningful, but it does not agree with how some others use the term.

Pot-committed means that if your opponent bets or raises all-in, you have the odds to call.

This depends on your cards and stack size. If you have AA preflop, you are pot-committed no matter what the stack-sizes are. If you have 32o in the big blind, you are only pot-committed if your stack isn't much larger than the big blind.

Just because you are pot-committed on one street does not mean you will be pot-committed on the next street.

If your opponent's stack is small, you may be pot-committed with a weak hand even when your stack is large.

Pot-committed does not mean you would have the odds to call if you could see your opponent's cards. You can be pot-committed on the river. Your hand may be good enough and the stacks small enough relative to the pot that there is not be enough room for your opponent to convince you that you are beaten.

Don't try to bluff someone who would be pot-committed with any two cards, or with any reasonable cards. It is usually a good time to value-bet. It is usually bad to give your opponent the ability to value-bet when you will be pot-committed.

jimymat
10-03-2004, 06:10 PM
Also note this was a round game and not a tournament. If it was a tournament I would have played the hand a lot different. Hopefully this gives you an idea of being "pot committed". It all basically comes down to what odds the pot is laying you, the style of player your against, and if you have \$5 in your pocket for gas money home. Good luck.

Mike Haven
10-03-2004, 08:06 PM
good story

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?

personally, (although you may choose to think that would be a good bet!), i don't think it could be said you are pot committed, and i think it's because you haven't put anything into the pot yet

but maybe i'm wrong

jimymat
10-03-2004, 09:04 PM
In my example I gave at what point would you feel pot committed and list all decision making factors youd use. (ex. players styles, tells, etc.)
Thanks

Mike Haven
10-03-2004, 09:34 PM
earlier, i was only trying to define the term, and by my way of definition

the play of a hand is a different kettle of fish, and if your gut felt you were in trouble in your hand, perhaps a "big" laydown might have been in order

personally, i never feel i am pot committed in a ring game because of the reason that you give - that it "never ends"

if i think i am beaten, then i will fold even if it leaves me with less than the \$5 taxi fare! (but, i do admit, having read SSH, i'm starting to think i fold too much, even though i've "never" yet seen opponents' cards that make me sorry i folded - but, again, that's another story)

jimymat
10-04-2004, 12:33 AM
I did not notice your post from this morning when I replied back. I think you have pretty much hit the nail on the head with your first post. I think a lot of it goes back to being able to read your opponents too. Good post. Good luck.

pzhon
10-04-2004, 04:48 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Your right about it not being a good call if you have nothing in the pot yet. Obviously a lot has to do with how loose or tight the other players are. If I would have had nothing in the pot and three all-in raises ahead of me it would be an easy fold.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I think you are confused.

The main difference between the two situations is that in the actual situation, you were up against one hand. In the hypothetical modification, three people are all-in. You expect AK to win more against 1 hand than against 3 hands, so paying \$150 for your share of a \$700 4-way pot may be a bad deal even though paying \$150 for your share of a \$700 2-way pot may be a bargain.

Another difference is that the money in the modified example did not add up to \$150. If there was a \$100 push, a reraise all-in to \$200, a reraise all-in to \$250, and you have no money in the pot, then it is \$250 to you, not \$150.

Another difference is that the people in the modified example showed more strength than in the actual example.

As a side note, AKo is usually a favorite in a multi-way pot. If someone has a pocket pair, AK can't win without improving (unless the pair gets counterfeited), but AK improves more than half of the time (49% of the time an ace or king comes, and a few percent of the time no ace or king comes, but AKo makes a straight or flush). When AK hits, it generally wins whether against 1 pocket pair or many, and that means AK usually wins a disproportionate share of a multiway pot. People like to talk about how well some hands like JTs do in a multi-way pot. That should be because they do poorly heads-up, not because they are better in a multi-way pot than AK, even off-suit. Against 1-9 random hands, AKo does better than JTs.

Jman28
10-04-2004, 05:11 AM
[ 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
10-04-2004, 08:22 AM
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
10-04-2004, 06:51 PM
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
10-04-2004, 07:05 PM
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
10-04-2004, 07:17 PM
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
10-04-2004, 08:57 PM
[ 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
10-27-2004, 01:44 PM
[ 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
10-27-2004, 01:49 PM
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.