Thoughts?

[Jason Strasser]

Statement: "If you are committed to the pot the best line to take is one that involes keeping the range of hands that your opponent or opponents may hold as big as possible."

A quick example is that if your opponent raises in middle position and you have AA on the button with 15bb. Well, you can't really get away regardless of what comes, right? So might as well flat call and hope that either one of the blinds goes for a resteal with a fairly wide range of hands, and also hope that the original raiser will put in more money on the whole if you flat call then if you reraise.

There are many counterarguments to this, and my thoughts will come later.

-Jason

P.S. the statement came from nowhere except my head, i just put it in quotes for no good reason

[LearnedfromTV]

I read nearly the exact same thing in a post by another popular poster recently and remember thinking then, as I do now, that it was pretty standard thinking.

If "committed" "willing to play for all your chips", that part puts us in a reasonably short-stacked tournament context, which limits what it can mean for us to act so as to manipulate the amount of money our opponent puts in with various hands. Within this context, occasionally considerations like preferring a smaller chance of busting in exchange for a slightly lower EV may be involved, although usually not.

If "committed" simply means committed to seeing showdown, we're in wider territory, but still this is a subset of "choosing actions that encourage weaker hands to bet more than they would otherwise and stronger hands to bet less than they would otherwise."

In the AA case, sometimes the original raiser is more likely to put money in preflop than post, and the opponents left to act may or may not be the type you can expect to resteal. More a read question (isn't everything), but yes, I've flat called in this kind of spot before for this reason. And made similar plays at diferent points in other hands. I imagine we all have.

[Sluss]

This scares me a bit at it's heart. It feels a little wrong to me. I'm usually trying to get AA heads up. I can see though how this line could put you in great chip shape really fast.

Are you pushing any flop? Or are you going to try and slowplay the action to a halt and make a move when it looks like someone has hit something?

I'm not sure I want to see a pot odds call out of the BB with 87s and then watch him call your flop push with a straight and flush draw.

[Melchiades]

Agreed. When I am this short and are dealt a hand like this I know I'm not getting away. So my only thought will be how can I get the most money in the pot. If that means someone will get to outdraw me, so be it.

[Roman]

This depends entirely on how vulnerable your hand is to an outdraw. Obviously if you are commited with 22 you dont want to keep the range of your opponent or opponents as high as possible. With a hand like AA obviously the concept does not apply. "statements" in poker are pretty dumb. Everything is situational.

[Jason Strasser]

Im more interested in the statement than analysis of the example.

It has other implications. Let's say you are out of position and have a weak made hand against a player you suspect has a draw or a bluff and will push it hard. Instead of, say, leading out all in which will give him a terrible price on his draw (which he may call or may fold), and causing him to fold his bluffs, you might decide to check and let him stick all his chips in before you call (assume you both have 1 pot sized left). Checking increases the range of hands you are against, and if you determined you are committed then according to my statement it would be the optimal line.

[DJ Sensei]

I'd say, that in the MTT context, that when you are pot committed, you want to maximize your chances of winning the pot first, and worry about chip EV next. The main reason is that if you are all-in or potentially all-in, you NEED to win the pot in order to stay alive in the tournament.

For instance, in the given example, just calling the raise on the button with AA is a good idea if it'll cause more callers or reraisers with weaker hands (smaller pairs, Ax, etc.) These hands don't affect your pot equity too much since they still need lots of help to beat you, so your chances of winning the hand will still be large. However, with a pair like JJ or QQ, you'd be better off reraising to isolate the primary raiser. The last thing you want is another person to come into the pot with an A or K in his hand, and thus decrease your pot equity greatly.

To put some numbers on it, lets say the first raiser has AQs, and will call a push (not necessarily true depending on the player, but for the sake of argument lets assume it). The big blind has either KJs or 88. If you reraise, he'll fold, but if you just call, he'll call as well.

Chances of winning the hand are as follows:
AA with reraise - 87.5%
AA with KJs call - 70.8%
AA with 88 call - 68.3%

QQ with reraise - 65.7%
QQ with KJs call - 42.3%
QQ with 88 call - 50.6%

[MLG]

You're miss understanding a little. What Strassa is saying is not that you should always call, just that you should take the course of action that keeps the widest range of actions. So calling vs. raising depends on the players and the situations. Strassa is just suggesting a motivation for your actions, not specific actions.

Disclaimer: I haven't decided yet how much I agree with Strassa's original statement.

[Jason Strasser]

Statements in poker are dumb?

what about 'Playing optimally is as you would if you could see your opponents cards.'

what about 'Players interpret a pot bet as stronger than a 1/4 pot bet.'

All of poker theory is based on statements. Obviously, you adjust according to each situation but your foundation should be the theory.

-Jason

Edit: Absolutes in poker are dumb.

[Jason Strasser]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say, that in the MTT context, that when you are pot committed, you want to maximize your chances of winning the pot first, and worry about chip EV next.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is as far as i got in your post.

There are spots very late in tournies where this is true, but for the most part take this idea and trash it. The priority is EV and you should not make a habit of sacrificing EV for variance hardly ever.
-Jason