PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment

[WarhammerIIC]

I'm committed to keeping the study group going.

[Sunny Mehta]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm committed to keeping the study group going.

[/ QUOTE ]

alright, let's do it

[bozzer]

I'm keen too! Have enough people read the book yet? Questions to follow when I get home...

[Disconnected]

Once again, I forgot to bring my book to work, so I could have my references right /images/graemlins/frown.gif. But, from memory, I think in this chapter, the book describes the commitment threshold as 1/3 of the effective stack size. However, later it describes the commitment threshold at 10% of the effective stack size or when the pot is 1/4 the size of the effective stack size. I don't think the semantics affect the underlying concepts in the book at all, but for the sake of discussion, since CT will be a common term, maybe Sunny or Matt could confirm what it is.

FWIW, I think of the actual threshold as the first (1/3 of the effective stack size), as once you pass here, you are not usually returning. The second definition (10% stack or stack = 4x pot) means you're going to be at the threshold after someone makes a decent sized bet, so know what you want to do.

The discussion on commitment was the best part of this book for me, even more than the closely related SPR concepts.

[WarhammerIIC]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm keen too! Have enough people read the book yet? Questions to follow when I get home...

[/ QUOTE ]
Either not enough people have read it, or they're just waiting for the REM and Planning Hands Around Committment sections.

[HighOctane]

It seems like there is a lot of raising on the flop in my games. This means that I end up folding what I think may be too many hands. I raise w/ AQ, AJs, KQ(s) and get called. I hit top pair good kicker and I c-bet. At this point I've crossed the commitment threshhold. Now when I get raised, it usually means I am being threatened to be all in by the end of the hand. I say to myself, I am not committed, so I fold. How do you approach a game where people play the same way with a dominated TP hand as they do with a set? If I try to play a small pot, then is is interpreted as weakness and it plays out the almost the same. Maybe this is a REM question and not a commitment question.

[Disconnected]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems like there is a lot of raising on the flop in my games. This means that I end up folding what I think may be too many hands. I raise w/ AQ, AJs, KQ(s) and get called. I hit top pair good kicker and I c-bet. At this point I've crossed the commitment threshhold. Now when I get raised, it usually means I am being threatened to be all in by the end of the hand. I say to myself, I am not committed, so I fold. How do you approach a game where people play the same way with a dominated TP hand as they do with a set? If I try to play a small pot, then is is interpreted as weakness and it plays out the almost the same. Maybe this is a REM question and not a commitment question.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they're loose players, they will have dominated TP hands more often than sets, so you should be willing to commit with your TPTK hands more often. If they're tight (or moreso weak/tight), then getting out before you're committed with a TP hand when there is a lot of chips behind is good. I guess this is where SPR is really going to come into play later....you get to your target SPR with a TP hand, and then you can commit more easily.

[Sunny Mehta]

[ QUOTE ]
Once again, I forgot to bring my book to work, so I could have my references right /images/graemlins/frown.gif. But, from memory, I think in this chapter, the book describes the commitment threshold as 1/3 of the effective stack size. However, later it describes the commitment threshold at 10% of the effective stack size or when the pot is 1/4 the size of the effective stack size. I don't think the semantics affect the underlying concepts in the book at all, but for the sake of discussion, since CT will be a common term, maybe Sunny or Matt could confirm what it is.

FWIW, I think of the actual threshold as the first (1/3 of the effective stack size), as once you pass here, you are not usually returning. The second definition (10% stack or stack = 4x pot) means you're going to be at the threshold after someone makes a decent sized bet, so know what you want to do.

The discussion on commitment was the best part of this book for me, even more than the closely related SPR concepts.

[/ QUOTE ]

hi Disconnected,

so, first off, this is the more basic "Commitment" chapter in the fundamentals section, as opposed to the "Commitment Threshold" section later in the book. But since you asked, here's a clarification on CT:

-general premise is that you don't want to get in the habit of putting in a third of your stack and then folding

-the Commitment Threshold is when the pot is one-fourth of the remaining money, and it warns that you should make a commitment plan because you are close to being committed

-a shortcut to help remember this is to be aware of the 10 percent mark of your own stack

[Disconnected]

Thanks Sunny, that's a perfect clarification. Sorry for jumping ahead, too /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[PleasureGuy69]

Hi,

In this chapter, you guys talk about not building a big pot unless you are willing to go all in and to make a commitment decision before playing a big pot.

Ok I'll use a hand example for my question:

Say it's a 50NL game and effective stacks are 50$. You're sitting UTG and raise it up to $2 with QQ. Button who is a tag, is the only one who calls. The pot is now at $5. The flop comes:

TT5 rainbow.

You make a bet of 4$ but BB raises up $12. If you call/raise, you are passed the commitment threshold (as later mentioned in the book). Surely you can't raise because that will only fold out better hands, but many TAGS are known to raise on boards like this as a bluff, or if they have a smaller PP.

How committed are you? In this instance, the flop is where you make your commitment decision right? And if so, how do you proceed while taking into account the stack sizes, the pot size, and the conditions here?

----------------

I have another example which probably fits for later in the book when you talk about not folding when you put in 1/3 of your stack. However, you guys also talk about folding 1/3 of your stack when you know you're beat. This seems pretty obvious but the problem is that a lot of people fold for 1/3 of their stack too much thinking that they're beat (is this what you guys are trying to say?)

I guess that SPR helps you plan your hand so you don't end up in spots where you're faced with difficult decisions when you've already put in 1/3 of your stack. However, you guys do mention that folding after putting 1/3 of your stack in is right if you know you're beat. This is the tricky part.

For example, in a 50NL game, with 50$ effective stacks, Co raises to 2$ PF and he's a standard TAG. His range could be very wide here. Everyone folds to you and you are in BB with JJ. You repop to 8. You clearly are passed the commitment threshold here. CO calls your bet and you see a flop of:

572 rainbow. This is pretty good. The pot is $16 so you do the standard thing of betting around $10. He calls. The pot is now 36$. The turn is a blank. Let's say it's another 2 so the board is 5572.

The pot is now $36, and you've put in $18 which is more than 1/3 of your stack.

A lot of people recommend c/folding here. Is this bad because of your guideline of not folding after putting in 1/3 of your stack?

What should the commitment though process be in these two hands?


---------------

Edit:

In the 2nd hand example, you are known to 3 bet wide and CO could have called your 3 bet with AQ,AQ, and any pocket pair that is 77+ and perhaps some other crap 'cause he knows you 3 bet wide and could be looking to take the pot away from you later.

[retleftolc]

Example:

.25 6max online 100BB stack. Hero has AK UTG, raises to $1. Gets called by button- loose typical short stack(30BB).

Flop 9 8 2 rainbow. C-bet gets you commited. Check gives you the option of fold or AI to a raise.

Are we willing to get it in here a very high percentage if there is a bet or raise on the flop?


Ret

[Sunny Mehta]

Hi PleasureGuy69,


[ QUOTE ]
Hi,

In this chapter, you guys talk about not building a big pot unless you are willing to go all in and to make a commitment decision before playing a big pot.

Ok I'll use a hand example for my question:

Say it's a 50NL game and effective stacks are 50$. You're sitting UTG and raise it up to $2 with QQ. Button who is a tag, is the only one who calls. The pot is now at $5. The flop comes:

TT5 rainbow.

You make a bet of 4$ but BB raises up $12. If you call/raise, you are passed the commitment threshold (as later mentioned in the book). Surely you can't raise because that will only fold out better hands, but many TAGS are known to raise on boards like this as a bluff, or if they have a smaller PP.

How committed are you? In this instance, the flop is where you make your commitment decision right? And if so, how do you proceed while taking into account the stack sizes, the pot size, and the conditions here?

[/ QUOTE ]

there is not one right answer in this hand. you could separate your preflop raise to see if there's something you could've done differently. if you like preflop, then you can look at the flop to see if there's something you could've done differently (i.e. - check). if you like betting, then you can basically just try to maximize from that point on using the best postflop betting line. i.e - call and then check turn. or call and then donk turn. or min-re-raise flop. etc.



[ QUOTE ]

----------------

I have another example which probably fits for later in the book when you talk about not folding when you put in 1/3 of your stack. However, you guys also talk about folding 1/3 of your stack when you know you're beat. This seems pretty obvious but the problem is that a lot of people fold for 1/3 of their stack too much thinking that they're beat (is this what you guys are trying to say?)

I guess that SPR helps you plan your hand so you don't end up in spots where you're faced with difficult decisions when you've already put in 1/3 of your stack. However, you guys do mention that folding after putting 1/3 of your stack in is right if you know you're beat. This is the tricky part.

For example, in a 50NL game, with 50$ effective stacks, Co raises to 2$ PF and he's a standard TAG. His range could be very wide here. Everyone folds to you and you are in BB with JJ. You repop to 8. You clearly are passed the commitment threshold here. CO calls your bet and you see a flop of:

572 rainbow. This is pretty good. The pot is $16 so you do the standard thing of betting around $10. He calls. The pot is now 36$. The turn is a blank. Let's say it's another 2 so the board is 5572.

The pot is now $36, and you've put in $18 which is more than 1/3 of your stack.

A lot of people recommend c/folding here. Is this bad because of your guideline of not folding after putting in 1/3 of your stack?

What should the commitment though process be in these two hands?

[/ QUOTE ]

again, you can separate the different points in the hand, but my general feeling is that if I played the hand exactly like you did up til the turn, I would fold on the turn just about never. i.e. - against 90+ percent of opponents, if you are willing to fold this turn then you made a mistake earlier in the hand.

-S

[PleasureGuy69]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi PleasureGuy69,


[ QUOTE ]

----------------

I have another example which probably fits for later in the book when you talk about not folding when you put in 1/3 of your stack. However, you guys also talk about folding 1/3 of your stack when you know you're beat. This seems pretty obvious but the problem is that a lot of people fold for 1/3 of their stack too much thinking that they're beat (is this what you guys are trying to say?)

I guess that SPR helps you plan your hand so you don't end up in spots where you're faced with difficult decisions when you've already put in 1/3 of your stack. However, you guys do mention that folding after putting 1/3 of your stack in is right if you know you're beat. This is the tricky part.

For example, in a 50NL game, with 50$ effective stacks, Co raises to 2$ PF and he's a standard TAG. His range could be very wide here. Everyone folds to you and you are in BB with JJ. You repop to 8. You clearly are passed the commitment threshold here. CO calls your bet and you see a flop of:

572 rainbow. This is pretty good. The pot is $16 so you do the standard thing of betting around $10. He calls. The pot is now 36$. The turn is a blank. Let's say it's another 2 so the board is 5572.

The pot is now $36, and you've put in $18 which is more than 1/3 of your stack.

A lot of people recommend c/folding here. Is this bad because of your guideline of not folding after putting in 1/3 of your stack?

What should the commitment though process be in these two hands?

[/ QUOTE ]

again, you can separate the different points in the hand, but my general feeling is that if I played the hand exactly like you did up til the turn, I would fold on the turn just about never. i.e. - against 90+ percent of opponents, if you are willing to fold this turn then you made a mistake earlier in the hand.

-S

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi,

Thanks for the prompt reply!

I made an edit to hand 2 in my original post that might be useful:

[ QUOTE ]
Edit:

In the 2nd hand example, you are known to 3 bet wide and CO could have called your 3 bet with AQ,AQ, and any pocket pair that is 77+ and perhaps some other crap 'cause he knows you 3 bet wide and could be looking to take the pot away from you later.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mentioned that if I'm willing to fold to the turn bet, that means I made a mistake earlier in the hand.

Could you elaborate on how you'd play it? The problem is, I don't see how we can NOT 3 bet here because if we only 3 bet with KK or AA, we'd never get action. Also, we're way ahead of villain's range even when he calls because we 3 bet lots.

The problem with the hand is that we bet because we're ahead of 77-1010 so he'd call 1 bet with that. However, it's hard to say if he'd call a turn bet with anything that we beat. Also, since the pot is so large and he probably thinks we're committed, he might not bet unless he has us beat.

Plz clarify on how to not to make a commitment mistake on this hand.

[+EV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once again, I forgot to bring my book to work, so I could have my references right /images/graemlins/frown.gif. But, from memory, I think in this chapter, the book describes the commitment threshold as 1/3 of the effective stack size. However, later it describes the commitment threshold at 10% of the effective stack size or when the pot is 1/4 the size of the effective stack size. I don't think the semantics affect the underlying concepts in the book at all, but for the sake of discussion, since CT will be a common term, maybe Sunny or Matt could confirm what it is.

FWIW, I think of the actual threshold as the first (1/3 of the effective stack size), as once you pass here, you are not usually returning. The second definition (10% stack or stack = 4x pot) means you're going to be at the threshold after someone makes a decent sized bet, so know what you want to do.

The discussion on commitment was the best part of this book for me, even more than the closely related SPR concepts.

[/ QUOTE ]

hi Disconnected,

so, first off, this is the more basic "Commitment" chapter in the fundamentals section, as opposed to the "Commitment Threshold" section later in the book. But since you asked, here's a clarification on CT:

-general premise is that you don't want to get in the habit of putting in a third of your stack and then folding

-the Commitment Threshold is when the pot is one-fourth of the remaining money, and it warns that you should make a commitment plan because you are close to being committed

-a shortcut to help remember this is to be aware of the 10 percent mark of your own stack

[/ QUOTE ]

One place where I am specifically having trouble with commitment issues is with AK. Often I am three betting this in position and finding that ugly flops make me have to reevaluate my committment.

Typical examples
AcKs on Button at NL50
Co bets 4BB
Hero raises to 12BB blinds fold CO calls
Pot ~25BB
Co checks
Hero Cbets ~12-18BB, Villain calls or raises?

We have passed the commitment threshold by putting 25-20BB into the pot.

How does this change if the board is
KdTd6d
KdTs6d
QdTs6d

I am wondering if we should be checking behind to avoid commitment on these types of flops where we might have the best hand but are unlikely to by showdown.

If we do cbet and a 3rd or 4th diamond comes are we still able to get away after having committed 1/3 of our stack?

+EV

[Sunny Mehta]

a little pressed for time at the moment, perhaps others can chime in as well.


[ QUOTE ]
The problem is, I don't see how we can NOT 3 bet here because if we only 3 bet with KK or AA, we'd never get action.

[/ QUOTE ]

just because you don't 3-bet jacks doesn't mean you have to only 3-bet AA and KK.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, we're way ahead of villain's range even when he calls because we 3 bet lots.

The problem with the hand is that we bet because we're ahead of 77-1010 so he'd call 1 bet with that. However, it's hard to say if he'd call a turn bet with anything that we beat. Also, since the pot is so large and he probably thinks we're committed, he might not bet unless he has us beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

if 88-TT are a big part of his range then you answered your own question. if you're saying he never commits with those hands on this turn with one psb left, regardless of whether you check or bet, my general feeling is that you're underestimating his commitment range. however, if he really plays that tightly, you can basically exploit the hell out of him by utilizing fold equity, like, a lot.

[Sunny Mehta]

[ QUOTE ]


One place where I am specifically having trouble with commitment issues is with AK. Often I am three betting this in position and finding that ugly flops make me have to reevaluate my committment.

Typical examples
AcKs on Button at NL50
Co bets 4BB
Hero raises to 12BB blinds fold CO calls
Pot ~25BB
Co checks
Hero Cbets ~12-18BB, Villain calls or raises?

We have passed the commitment threshold by putting 25-20BB into the pot.


[/ QUOTE ]

if you're c-betting on a rag board just to pick up the pot, you're bluffing. it's totally fine to cross the commitment threshold if you're bluffing. remember all the exceptions we list and give examples for.

[WarhammerIIC]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


One place where I am specifically having trouble with commitment issues is with AK. Often I am three betting this in position and finding that ugly flops make me have to reevaluate my committment.

Typical examples
AcKs on Button at NL50
Co bets 4BB
Hero raises to 12BB blinds fold CO calls
Pot ~25BB
Co checks
Hero Cbets ~12-18BB, Villain calls or raises?

We have passed the commitment threshold by putting 25-20BB into the pot.


[/ QUOTE ]

if you're c-betting on a rag board just to pick up the pot, you're bluffing. it's totally fine to cross the commitment threshold if you're bluffing. remember all the exceptions we list and give examples for.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was going to mention this a little earlier, but I think some are getting too caught up in the "1/3 of your stack in the pot means you have to commit" point. Yes, that's true for the most part, but there are a slew of exceptions in the book. If you have a hand, yeah, you're going to want to think about whether or not you're committed when 1/3 goes in. But if you don't have a hand, you can put 1/3 in because you're not committed and will fold easily if you find resistance. That's pretty much how a huge percentage of your c-bets will go.

There are other exceptions, but putting in over 1/3 on a bluff is the most common since it happens on a huge percentage of hands. Constantly folding hands you don't want to get all in with because you're afraid of getting 1/3 of your stack in there is weak-tight and definitely not what the book is advocating.

[Matt Flynn]

hi everyone i'm here just buried in work. will come back later today.

commitment just means figure out whether you want to get all-in or are willing to get all-in. answering that question can radically change how you approach a hand. if you aren't committed, be very careful about building a big pot.

it's simple but powerful.

[bozzer]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm keen too! Have enough people read the book yet? Questions to follow when I get home...

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah I realised that this is the bit about commitment in the fundamentals chapter, which I found pretty straight forward.

Just one comment i guess is that committed in poker terms is often used in quite negative terms 'i'm pot committed so i have to call'. i think this is similar to the description of being 'reluctantly committed' in the book. But the authors do a good job of explaining that commitment is (or should be) a choice. I like the term 'playing for stacks' myself /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Quick quiz (no looking at the book) - what is the most important factor in determining whether you are committed? (i thought this could have been emphasised a touch more.)

[aaaaa]

Exception to commitment #5 (punishing your opponent):

There is no example to commitment exception #5 so I am a bit confused when you decide to bet to punish your *tight* opponent's tendency to call the flush with draws.

Suppose you have AQo and blinds are 1,1
You 3-bet pf, opponent calls; Pot = 8

FLOP: Qh 7h 2s,

so you flopped TPTK and *usually* you do NOT want to commit. (i.e. want to build a pot with intention of going AI)

But ---
1. you know the opponent is a sucker for draws and you want to punish him.
2. you got TPTK so the hand isn't all that bad.

So you bet 2/3 of pot: 6, he calls. Pot = 20

This tightens your range, either he is slow-playing sets or on a draw. In most of the remaining cases you have a made hand that is likely to remain a fav on t & r.

TURN: Tc
board: Qh 7h 2s Tc , pot = 20

You bet 15, he calls 15, pot = 60

QUESTIONS:
1. How's the line upto here to punish the opponent who likes draws?
2. On the turn the pot has escalated to 60. Is 2/3 still a good bet here or should I punish him with 1/2 pot which will make the pot "smaller" compared to my 100BB stack?
3. Now is the part I am most confused about -- if a Jh flops and he completes his flush, do I do a blocking bet of 10$? OR
Do I go all-in instead of betting 2/3 on the turn. i.e. I am betting 80 in a pot of 20 while the opponent is on a draw. But then he may have been slow-playing a set.

Thanks.

[aaaaa]

@ quiz:

I would say having +EV is the most important factor.

A. However at each street, you EV may go from + to -, and if it goes to a large -EV then you should reconsider.

B. If you hold premium hands, by the flop you will usually know if your hand is going to be best hand at showdown.
So PF: I would commit with premium hands ONLY because these have +EV
after flop: other hands like 89s or AK may make you get commited because you notice your EV has suddenly become +ve.

Is this the correct answer?

[WarhammerIIC]

[ QUOTE ]
Exception to commitment #5 (punishing your opponent):

There is no example to commitment exception #5 so I am a bit confused when you decide to bet to punish your *tight* opponent's tendency to call the flush with draws.

1. How's the line upto here to punish the opponent who likes draws?

[/ QUOTE ]
The point isn't that you're punishing an opponent who likes draws... the point is that you're punishing an opponent with a strong tendency to bet big on the river after missing his draw. If instead the opponent had a tendency to call bets that were too big when he has a draw and then fold on the river, you would take a totally different line.

[WarhammerIIC]

Hmmm... I might be looking at the wrong exception in the book. I'm assuming you're talking about the making a small bet exception, which they give an AQ example for.

[aaaaa]

I am talking about Exception#5 on page 72 -- there are no examples in the text.

I just made up the example as I felt it suited the situation -- not referring the example to any example in the text.

[Sunny Mehta]

hi aaaaa,

you're looking at the Pot Control chapter, not Commitment. however...


[ QUOTE ]
Exception to commitment #5 (punishing your opponent):

There is no example to commitment exception #5 so I am a bit confused when you decide to bet to punish your *tight* opponent's tendency to call the flush with draws.

Suppose you have AQo and blinds are 1,1
You 3-bet pf, opponent calls; Pot = 8

FLOP: Qh 7h 2s,

so you flopped TPTK and *usually* you do NOT want to commit. (i.e. want to build a pot with intention of going AI)

But ---
1. you know the opponent is a sucker for draws and you want to punish him.
2. you got TPTK so the hand isn't all that bad.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'd add to that the most important one: your opponent will not raise you on the turn with a worse hand.


[ QUOTE ]

So you bet 2/3 of pot: 6, he calls. Pot = 20

This tightens your range, either he is slow-playing sets or on a draw. In most of the remaining cases you have a made hand that is likely to remain a fav on t & r.

TURN: Tc
board: Qh 7h 2s Tc , pot = 20

You bet 15, he calls 15, pot = 60

QUESTIONS:
1. How's the line upto here to punish the opponent who likes draws?
2. On the turn the pot has escalated to 60. Is 2/3 still a good bet here or should I punish him with 1/2 pot which will make the pot "smaller" compared to my 100BB stack?
3. Now is the part I am most confused about -- if a Jh flops and he completes his flush, do I do a blocking bet of 10$? OR
Do I go all-in instead of betting 2/3 on the turn. i.e. I am betting 80 in a pot of 20 while the opponent is on a draw. But then he may have been slow-playing a set.

Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

your line is fine up til the river if your read of your opponent's range and tendencies are correct. however, the Jh on the river is basically the worst card in the deck. A blocking bet or even a check/fold is fine because the assumption is that your opponent is not going to put a lot of money in on this river with anything you beat.

[WarhammerIIC]

[ QUOTE ]
I am talking about Exception#5 on page 72 -- there are no examples in the text.

I just made up the example as I felt it suited the situation -- not referring the example to any example in the text.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, that's the Pot Control chapter. No wonder I'm so damn confused! /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[aaaaa]

my bad.

[threads13]

Just to make sure I have this right. We can be committed if we feel that a combination of our FE and our equity make it profitable to get AI, right?

Being committed isn't as narrowly focused as being +EV when called it is just being +EV when your stack hits the center of the table. Correctamundo?

I believe there is a line at the very bottom of the commitment threshold chapter that mislead me a little bit about this. I believe it says that you are committed when you expect to make money against your opponents calling range when you are AI. This is only the case if you are not semi-bluffing or bluffing... right?

[bozzer]

[ QUOTE ]
Just to make sure I have this right. We can be committed if we feel that a combination of our FE and our equity make it profitable to get AI, right?

Being committed isn't as narrowly focused as being +EV when called it is just being +EV when your stack hits the center of the table. Correctamundo?

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct.

[ QUOTE ]

I believe there is a line at the very bottom of the commitment threshold chapter that mislead me a little bit about this. I believe it says that you are committed when you expect to make money against your opponents calling range when you are AI.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think in this case you are 'happily committed'.

[threads13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just to make sure I have this right. We can be committed if we feel that a combination of our FE and our equity make it profitable to get AI, right?

Being committed isn't as narrowly focused as being +EV when called it is just being +EV when your stack hits the center of the table. Correctamundo?

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct.

[ QUOTE ]

I believe there is a line at the very bottom of the commitment threshold chapter that mislead me a little bit about this. I believe it says that you are committed when you expect to make money against your opponents calling range when you are AI.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think in this case you are 'happily committed'.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am going to be committed way more often now. Somehow I got in my head that only am committed when I +EV when called.

[Disconnected]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just to make sure I have this right. We can be committed if we feel that a combination of our FE and our equity make it profitable to get AI, right?

Being committed isn't as narrowly focused as being +EV when called it is just being +EV when your stack hits the center of the table. Correctamundo?

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct.

[ QUOTE ]

I believe there is a line at the very bottom of the commitment threshold chapter that mislead me a little bit about this. I believe it says that you are committed when you expect to make money against your opponents calling range when you are AI.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think in this case you are 'happily committed'.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am going to be committed way more often now. Somehow I got in my head that only am committed when I +EV when called.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I thought that you were only committed when +EV if called. However, one of the major exceptions to putting in chips when not committed is when you are stealing (i.e., you have a large amount of FE).

For example, you count on a significant amount of FE when making a semi-bluff, and that semi-bluff can be absolutely the right play. But if your opponent calls your semi-bluff, you are unhappy, therefore not committed.

[WarhammerIIC]

[ QUOTE ]
I am going to be committed way more often now. Somehow I got in my head that only am committed when I +EV when called.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, in general, when you're thinking about getting your money in for value, you're going to assume that you get called. But, yeah, if you factor in fold equity, you can of course "commit" more often. This really falls under the "exceptions", though... you're making a big bet as a semi-bluff. You really don't want to get called here, but there is enough overall equity to make the play.

[Onaflag]

I have nothing to add to the current discussion, but just want to make an observation about the example on page 59 and what I learned from it. It was easy to skim over the example and not internalize what it was trying to teach.

100BB deep. You see a minraised flop with 4 others for a $25 pot and flop a set of 9s in position. Nice. Turn brings 3 to the flush and a couple straight possibilities. Mr. Tighty moves in for his remaining 85BB into a 12.5BB pot.

This is a situation where I'm sure I'm bleeding money. I get married to a flopped set and make a pissed off call thinking I'm beating his bluff or at least drawing to win. Many times I'll be OOP making it even tougher since I likely lead making the pot that much bigger.

This example illustrates the importance of position, the value of being in with a full stack (assuming 100BB max), and how much tougher the decision would be with a bigger pot as would be the case in a 50BB max game or buying in short. I also think I learned something about playing deep stacks in this example even though it is not about that.

I think I'll ponder this example a while changing bet amounts, buyin amounts, etc. to see how my decisions should change given different conditions.

Sorry, my post probably doesn't warrant discussion, but I just love the book and this thread.

Onaflag.........

[QTip]

Here's a hand I that came along where I think some of the chapter applies:

Villain was semi-tight and too aggressive.

Full Tilt No-Limit Hold'em, $2 BB (8 handed) Hand History Converter Tool (http://poker-tools.flopturnriver.com/Hand-Converter.php) from FlopTurnRiver.com (http://www.flopturnriver.com) (Format: 2+2 Forums)

saw flop|<font color="#C00000">saw showdown</font>

UTG+1 ($22.80)
MP1 ($81.05)
MP2 ($195)
CO ($134.80)
Button ($182.20)
SB ($333.05)
Hero ($100)
UTG ($321.25)

Preflop: Hero is BB with 4/images/graemlins/club.gif, 3/images/graemlins/club.gif.
UTG calls $2, <font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, CO calls $2, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, SB completes, Hero checks.

Flop: ($8) A/images/graemlins/club.gif, 5/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 2/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
SB checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets $5</font>, UTG folds, <font color="#CC3333">CO raises to $12</font>, SB folds, Hero calls $7.

Turn: ($32) 2/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">CO bets $19</font>, Hero calls $19.

River: ($70) A/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">CO bets $40</font>, Hero folds.

Final Pot: $70

Flop, obviously, I'm committed, I want to start building a pot, so I bet. I get raised by this villain, and I'm wanting to get the money in as soon as possible according to to our text. However, we don't just push and try to get creative. I feel like if I get too aggro here, I'm going to blow him away. I have a vey tight image at the table as I've been card dead.

Turn, I considered crai here; however, I think he would find it very difficult to call that given the turn card if he just had a naked ace. Given the size of his turn bet, I thought it would leave just enough behind to make a river push callable. Looking back at it, I think the play was to crai all in here before a 3rd club or straight card falls and slows him down. However, I didn't.

River. That sucks. My commitment plan just changed.

[bozzer]

yep. how about this example that happened 5 minutes ago?

Full Tilt Poker - No Limit Hold'em Cash Game - $0.15/$0.30 Blinds - 5 Players - (LegoPoker (http://www.legopoker.com) Hand History Converter (http://www.legopoker.com/hh))

SB: $30.30
BB: $32.05
Hero (UTG): $101.10
CO: $51.80
BTN: $10.75

Preflop: Hero is dealt J/images/graemlins/heart.gif K/images/graemlins/spade.gif (5 Players)
<font color="red">Hero raises to $1.20</font>, CO calls $1.20, 3 folds

Flop: ($2.85) 9/images/graemlins/club.gif Q/images/graemlins/diamond.gif T/images/graemlins/spade.gif (2 Players)
<font color="red">Hero bets $2.10</font>, CO calls $2.10

Turn: ($7.05) T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif (2 Players)
<font color="red">Hero bets $4.65</font>, CO calls $4.65

River: ($16.35) T/images/graemlins/heart.gif (2 Players)
Hero checks

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
yep. how about this example that happened 5 minutes ago?

Full Tilt Poker - No Limit Hold'em Cash Game - $0.15/$0.30 Blinds - 5 Players - (LegoPoker (http://www.legopoker.com) Hand History Converter (http://www.legopoker.com/hh))

SB: $30.30
BB: $32.05
Hero (UTG): $101.10
CO: $51.80
BTN: $10.75

Preflop: Hero is dealt J/images/graemlins/heart.gif K/images/graemlins/spade.gif (5 Players)
<font color="red">Hero raises to $1.20</font>, CO calls $1.20, 3 folds

Flop: ($2.85) 9/images/graemlins/club.gif Q/images/graemlins/diamond.gif T/images/graemlins/spade.gif (2 Players)
<font color="red">Hero bets $2.10</font>, CO calls $2.10

Turn: ($7.05) T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif (2 Players)
<font color="red">Hero bets $4.65</font>, CO calls $4.65

River: ($16.35) T/images/graemlins/heart.gif (2 Players)
Hero checks

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. The stuff in this chapter blows.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[zaphod]

Question: What is your plan for AK with an SPR of 4 after you miss the flop HU vs different type of opponents? What is your plan in postition and out of position?

[threads13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am going to be committed way more often now. Somehow I got in my head that only am committed when I +EV when called.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, in general, when you're thinking about getting your money in for value, you're going to assume that you get called. But, yeah, if you factor in fold equity, you can of course "commit" more often. This really falls under the "exceptions", though... you're making a big bet as a semi-bluff. You really don't want to get called here, but there is enough overall equity to make the play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. An example would be a combo draw on the flop if you get rationally 3-bet AI. You are conditionally committed.

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
Question: What is your plan for AK with an SPR of 4 after you miss the flop HU vs different type of opponents? What is your plan in postition and out of position?

[/ QUOTE ]


make a c-bet if that makes sense in each situation. default is to c-bet, but you don't want to c-bet after every raise unless your opponents just won't fire back without the goods.

[runway model]

Matt, Sunny

I'm confused about how to plan in situations where:

1) We are at the commitment threshold
2) We don't want to commit
3) We prob have the best hand
4) Villain has lots of outs

eg
Hero opens to 4BB in the CO with A9s, and the Button, who has TAG-ish stats and a stack of just over 40BB, calls. The blinds fold.

Flop is K93 rainbow, so we have 2nd pair.

- I don't really want commit 40BB on second pair
- But any bet or call on the flop is going to put 1/3 or so of eff stacks in.
- I don't want to fold yet
- If villain has hands like QJ, QT or JT, then these have 10 outs. So i'd prefer to avoid giving free cards

How should we think about planning hands like this? Thanks

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
Matt, Sunny

I'm confused about how to plan in situations where:

1) We are at the commitment threshold
2) We don't want to commit
3) We prob have the best hand
4) Villain has lots of outs


[/ QUOTE ]


tough spot with strong competing concerns. there is no easy answer.

[mvdgaag]

Some questions about commitment decisions and famous poker players' advices and observed plays.

I often see the television pro's in HSP or famous poker players on FT slowplay almost al their hands on the flop and also seldom cbet. After reading PNL I think this is because they do not want to commit with one pair hands and want to keep the pot small... This would probably force them to slowplay bigger hands too, for deception (if you check with nothing and with top pair most often than a bet is going to be suspicious) and also to get their opponents a chance to take a stab/catch a pair.
Am I correct in this analysis or is there an other reason they don't cbet as often as most 2p2ers on low and micro stakes suggest? Maybe they get more value from play on later streets?

Even seasoned pro's on the full tilt forums and in articles often do not seem to give SPR (or stack sizes) as arguments for their decisions when they discuss hands. It seems less important to them than the book seems to suggest. Is there a reason for this? Maybe they think it's too advanced, but really it's quite simple.

[mvdgaag]

I have trouble finding out when to commit. Often I want to commit when the action goes bet/call and I can put the rest in on the next street, but I don't want to commit when the action goes bet/raise. But to find out of he's going to raise I have to cross that treshold by betting. Is it often ok to bet/fold in this case or more often ok to choose not to commit at all. I feel he doesn't have to raise very frequently to damage my expectation drastically here if I plan to fold.

I know this will depend on a lot on my opponent and the recent history and the specific hand/board, etc. I'm looking for a general answer though, not to have to give too many specific examples. In most cases, can I still bet and only commit when he just calls?

[Sunny Mehta]

[ QUOTE ]
but I don't want to commit when the action goes bet/raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

hi mvdgaag,

What you're talking about can be okay - so long as you are confident in the fact that your opponent will only raise with a range that beats you. As we mention in one of the exceptions, you can cross the threshold and fold in cases where your opponent has a particular tendency that you are sure of.

-S

[effang]

grunch (will read when i get a chance):

i think this commitment theory isn't applicable to online poker unless you're playing high stakes. the reason for this is that at most games, 100bb is the max and the norm.

this means in an aggressive game (pre and post), any single 3/bet pot is going to reach commitment decisions on the flop.

i raise 4bb, i get 3/bet to 14bb, i call. there is now 30bb in the pot. any bet or call on the flop and i'm now committed. essentially, in any aggressive game, i'm making my 10% commitment decision preflop, rather than post flop.

[Sean Fraley]

[ QUOTE ]
grunch (will read when i get a chance):

i think this commitment theory isn't applicable to online poker unless you're playing high stakes. the reason for this is that at most games, 100bb is the max and the norm.

this means in an aggressive game (pre and post), any single 3/bet pot is going to reach commitment decisions on the flop.

i raise 4bb, i get 3/bet to 14bb, i call. there is now 30bb in the pot. any bet or call on the flop and i'm now committed. essentially, in any aggressive game, i'm making my 10% commitment decision preflop, rather than post flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this not applicable just because the decision comes early? Keep in mind that having 10% of the effective stacks does not mean you are committed, it simply means that the time has come to make your commitment plan. You can just as easily decide "No, I will not commit and therefore will not put more than 1/3 or my starting stack in the pot unless I am either bluffing, calling a draw with proper odds, or closing the action on the hand". In addition, last time I checked situations in which the effective stacks are greater than 100BB still come up from time to time in online poker, such as when somebody in addition to you has managed to double up since you sat down.

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
grunch (will read when i get a chance):

i think this commitment theory isn't applicable to online poker unless you're playing high stakes. the reason for this is that at most games, 100bb is the max and the norm.

this means in an aggressive game (pre and post), any single 3/bet pot is going to reach commitment decisions on the flop.

i raise 4bb, i get 3/bet to 14bb, i call. there is now 30bb in the pot. any bet or call on the flop and i'm now committed. essentially, in any aggressive game, i'm making my 10% commitment decision preflop, rather than post flop.

[/ QUOTE ]


this is why the online games are so high variance for the number of players.

it's just a commitment plan. you adapt as the hand plays out and new information comes in. the better you are the more adapting you do. the mistake amateurs make is stuffing 25bb into the pot on the flop then realizing their hand isn't strong enough to get all in. CT is just think before you bet. you are doing it out of habit and so don't benefit from the strong reminder.

[itWASaDREAM]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi,

Ok I'll use a hand example for my question:

Say it's a 50NL game and effective stacks are 50$. You're sitting UTG and raise it up to $2 with QQ. Button who is a tag, is the only one who calls. The pot is now at $5. The flop comes:

TT5 rainbow.

You make a bet of 4$ but BB raises up $12. If you call/raise, you are passed the commitment threshold (as later mentioned in the book). Surely you can't raise because that will only fold out better hands, but many TAGS are known to raise on boards like this as a bluff, or if they have a smaller PP.

How committed are you? In this instance, the flop is where you make your commitment decision right? And if so, how do you proceed while taking into account the stack sizes, the pot size, and the conditions here?

----------------


[/ QUOTE ]

I think with this hand we have to first apply the REM process and then figure if your comitted against his range. against most tags in this spot I would be putting in a third bet, willing to be commited. your ahead if his range, and its a great board for him to bluff because it does not hit the majority of your pf raising range