Pot Committed is a highly overrated concept.

[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.