PNL Study Group Day 5: Pot Control [Archive] - Two Plus Two Newer Archives

cjk73

08-24-2007, 09:35 AM

On page 68 there is a discussion of betting less when the board is uncoordinated in order to exercice pot control. Just so I am clear, this applies when you have a decent but potentially vulnerable hand like top pair and not when you miss and are c-betting, correct? In other words, you can sort of put the "must control pot" concern out of your mind when c betting a missed flop because you'll check/fold the rest of the hand anyway assuming villains call, correct?

QTip

08-24-2007, 09:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
On page 68 there is a discussion of betting less when the board is uncoordinated in order to exercice pot control. Just so I am clear, this applies when you have a decent but potentially vulnerable hand like top pair and not when you miss and are c-betting, correct? In other words, you can sort of put the "must control pot" concern out of your mind when c betting a missed flop because you'll check/fold the rest of the hand anyway assuming villains call, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding on this:

You're talking about cbetting with no pair, which is probably bluffing, esp. if you're double barrelling. This is different than pot control. If you check the turn instead of firing the turn and all you have is Ace high or whatever, you're really just giving yourself a free card/giving up. You're really not interested in seeing a showdown. You're either wanting your opponent to fold (bluffing) by betting, or you're just saying "you win".

The idea of checking behind with a made hand is what they're talking about here. This is because you want to get to showdown; however, you don't want to pay a lot to get there.

QTip

08-24-2007, 09:51 AM

I have 2 things I'd like to discuss from this chapter:

1. On page 72, you talk about the trickiest exception of all, the balance between small pot control and punishing draws. You mention several things to consider after considering your opponents and your hand. The 3 you mention are:

1. Stack sizes
2. Pot size
3. Recent game flow.

I'm wondering if you could provide an example for each (however, I'm mostly interested in #3 - recent game flow)

2. I'm also interested in the topic of taking advantage of the pot control turn check and the defense against it. I had the following hand the other day that got me thinking about it.

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

saw flop|saw showdown

MP2 ($133)
Hero ($105.30)
Button ($77.85)
SB ($204.60)
BB ($243.15)
UTG ($47)
UTG+1 ($136.35)
MP1 ($35)

Preflop: Hero is CO with K /images/graemlins/spade.gif, 9 /images/graemlins/spade.gif.
4 folds, Hero raises to $7, 1 fold, SB calls $6, 1 fold.

Flop: ($16) K /images/graemlins/heart.gif, 5 /images/graemlins/heart.gif, 7 /images/graemlins/club.gif (2 players)
SB bets $10, Hero calls $10.

Turn: ($36) 2 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif (2 players)
SB checks, Hero checks.

River: ($36) 4 /images/graemlins/club.gif (2 players)
SB bets $187.6 (All-In)

Even tho this is a massive bet, the concept is there, and I thought what a powerful move this is.

WarhammerIIC

08-24-2007, 09:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
On page 68 there is a discussion of betting less when the board is uncoordinated in order to exercice pot control. Just so I am clear, this applies when you have a decent but potentially vulnerable hand like top pair and not when you miss and are c-betting, correct? In other words, you can sort of put the "must control pot" concern out of your mind when c betting a missed flop because you'll check/fold the rest of the hand anyway assuming villains call, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that's just a general rule of thumb, regardless of whether or not you have a hand. If the board is uncoordinated, you can always bet less since it's unlikely any draws are out. Since you'll do this with your made hands, you should do this with your c-bets too... it saves you money when you're called and keeps your play random.

CasinoR7

08-24-2007, 10:19 AM

The link in the sticky to this thread isn't working.

cjk73

08-24-2007, 10:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On page 68 there is a discussion of betting less when the board is uncoordinated in order to exercice pot control. Just so I am clear, this applies when you have a decent but potentially vulnerable hand like top pair and not when you miss and are c-betting, correct? In other words, you can sort of put the "must control pot" concern out of your mind when c betting a missed flop because you'll check/fold the rest of the hand anyway assuming villains call, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that's just a general rule of thumb, regardless of whether or not you have a hand. If the board is uncoordinated, you can always bet less since it's unlikely any draws are out. Since you'll do this with your made hands, you should do this with your c-bets too... it saves you money when you're called and keeps your play random.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are betting less when cbetting uncoordinated boards not neccessarily to exercise pot control (because you arent worried about pot control while bluffing), but moreso because this what you would do IF you had a top pair hand (or better)? That's the essence I am getting from Q and War...goot?

WarhammerIIC

08-24-2007, 10:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On page 68 there is a discussion of betting less when the board is uncoordinated in order to exercice pot control. Just so I am clear, this applies when you have a decent but potentially vulnerable hand like top pair and not when you miss and are c-betting, correct? In other words, you can sort of put the "must control pot" concern out of your mind when c betting a missed flop because you'll check/fold the rest of the hand anyway assuming villains call, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that's just a general rule of thumb, regardless of whether or not you have a hand. If the board is uncoordinated, you can always bet less since it's unlikely any draws are out. Since you'll do this with your made hands, you should do this with your c-bets too... it saves you money when you're called and keeps your play random.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are betting less when cbetting uncoordinated boards not neccessarily to exercise pot control (because you arent worried about pot control while bluffing), but moreso because this what you would do IF you had a top pair hand (or better)? That's the essence I am getting from Q and War...goot?

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. Uncoordinated boards are great for c-betting because a) you'll win a huge percentage of the time, and b) you don't have to c-bet as much, so you save money those times you don't win.

But you always have to do the same thing when c-betting as you would when you had a hand. If you bet a lot on uncoordinated boards when you c-bet, but bet a small amount with TPTK hands, observant opponents will eat you alive. At micro-stakes, they might not, but as you move up they will.

Sunny Mehta

08-24-2007, 12:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The link in the sticky to this thread isn't working.

[/ QUOTE ]

fixed

Aviston

08-24-2007, 12:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
1. On page 72, you talk about the trickiest exception of all, the balance between small pot control and punishing draws. You mention several things to consider after considering your opponents and your hand. The 3 you mention are:

1. Stack sizes
2. Pot size
3. Recent game flow.

I'm wondering if you could provide an example for each (however, I'm mostly interested in #3 - recent game flow)

[/ QUOTE ]
I, too, am quite interested in hearing some more examples/details of this part of the chapter.

Dismas

08-24-2007, 01:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Pot control gets to the heart of planning hands. What pot size will work best for your hand? How can you make the pot that size?

For example, when should you try to keep the pot small, even if you likely have the best hand?

Answer: when the next bet threatens an all-in, and your hand may be best against opponents current range but not against his all-in range.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shouldn’t you’re answer also include the likelihood of you folding the best hand? The smaller the pot the less of a disaster of folding the best hand would be… So in essence the harder the hand is to play the smaller you should try and keep the pot.

Matt Flynn

08-24-2007, 05:04 PM

Matt Flynn

08-24-2007, 05:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I have 2 things I'd like to discuss from this chapter:

1. On page 72, you talk about the trickiest exception of all, the balance between small pot control and punishing draws. You mention several things to consider after considering your opponents and your hand. The 3 you mention are:

1. Stack sizes
2. Pot size
3. Recent game flow.

I'm wondering if you could provide an example for each (however, I'm mostly interested in #3 - recent game flow)

[/ QUOTE ]

1. SPR=1. Pot is no longer small and so keeping it small is irrelevant.

1. SPR=16. Now you have room to make a bet without getting into commitment range and so would be more inclined to bet.

2. See examples for #1.

3. You have been raising and taking down many pots recently. Players are getting sick of you. You should be less inclined to bet a modest hand b/c it is more likely someone will play back at you (with a draw or a made hand) and force you to fold. Of course, if you think they'll pay you off or play back at you with a lot of hands weaker than yours, then you should bet. Give 'em some rope and let them hang themselves.

Vedocorban

08-24-2007, 05:35 PM

Here are two examples where I tried putting pot control into practice, but I'm not sure if my timing was appropriate. Should I have been trying to protect my hand? This is definitely a tricky balancing act.

1) http://www.pokerhand.org/?1406569 Villain is loose preflop and postflop.

2) http://www.pokerhand.org/?1406596 Villain is loose in this hand, too. The HH didn't convert well, but I checked the turn and the final board is actually 35T,Q,4 (not 545,Q,4)

I'm not trying to turn this into a hand critique thread, but the pot control section of the book was fresh in my mind when I played both these hands. I'm naturally a very aggressive player, and would often bet these turns in the past. However, I just recently crossed over from MTTs, and I'm working hard to keep the value of TP/Overpairs in perspective when playing 100 BB deep.

Love to hear anyone's thoughts on when to protect your hand, and when to control the pot size.

Matt Flynn

08-24-2007, 05:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pot control gets to the heart of planning hands. What pot size will work best for your hand? How can you make the pot that size?

For example, when should you try to keep the pot small, even if you likely have the best hand?

Answer: when the next bet threatens an all-in, and your hand may be best against opponents current range but not against his all-in range.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shouldn’t you’re answer also include the likelihood of you folding the best hand? The smaller the pot the less of a disaster of folding the best hand would be… So in essence the harder the hand is to play the smaller you should try and keep the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, likelihood of folding the best hand is very important.

the harder the hand is, though, sometimes you can make it easier by making a big bet or two.

Matt Flynn

08-24-2007, 05:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]

2. I'm also interested in the topic of taking advantage of the pot control turn check and the defense against it. I had the following hand the other day that got me thinking about it.

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

saw flop|saw showdown

MP2 ($133)
Hero ($105.30)
Button ($77.85)
SB ($204.60)
BB ($243.15)
UTG ($47)
UTG+1 ($136.35)
MP1 ($35)

Preflop: Hero is CO with K /images/graemlins/spade.gif, 9 /images/graemlins/spade.gif.
4 folds, Hero raises to $7, 1 fold, SB calls $6, 1 fold.

Flop: ($16) K /images/graemlins/heart.gif, 5 /images/graemlins/heart.gif, 7 /images/graemlins/club.gif (2 players)
SB bets $10, Hero calls $10.

Turn: ($36) 2 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif (2 players)
SB checks, Hero checks.

River: ($36) 4 /images/graemlins/club.gif (2 players)
SB bets $187.6 (All-In)

Even tho this is a massive bet, the concept is there, and I thought what a powerful move this is.

[/ QUOTE ]

you'll see many high-stakes players doing just this. it's all math. if he has the best hand and you call, it's a disaster for you. if he is bluffing, folding is a disaster. you won't call that bet often. what could you have to call with other than 86? maybe a random hand here and there but c'mon. his bet is expected to succeed so often that the only bound on his making that play is you adjusting to it. then after a few of those you will likely overadjust and call the next one with one pair. that time he'll have the goods. Prahlad (Mahatma/Spirit Rock) used to do that all the time and was good at figuring out when it would take one or two pushes before you'd steel yourself for a big call. or at least he was good at it hu and shorthanded. longhanded he way overdid it for a while - i just waited for sets and checked/called all the way.

in microstakes opponents tend to either always have it there (or almost) or go way overboard using it and get clipped. so there's plenty of room to execute this strategy well. better be bankrolled for it though.

matt

QTip

08-24-2007, 06:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

2. I'm also interested in the topic of taking advantage of the pot control turn check and the defense against it. I had the following hand the other day that got me thinking about it.

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

saw flop|saw showdown

MP2 ($133)
Hero ($105.30)
Button ($77.85)
SB ($204.60)
BB ($243.15)
UTG ($47)
UTG+1 ($136.35)
MP1 ($35)

Preflop: Hero is CO with K /images/graemlins/spade.gif, 9 /images/graemlins/spade.gif.
4 folds, Hero raises to $7, 1 fold, SB calls $6, 1 fold.

Flop: ($16) K /images/graemlins/heart.gif, 5 /images/graemlins/heart.gif, 7 /images/graemlins/club.gif (2 players)
SB bets $10, Hero calls $10.

Turn: ($36) 2 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif (2 players)
SB checks, Hero checks.

River: ($36) 4 /images/graemlins/club.gif (2 players)
SB bets $187.6 (All-In)

Even tho this is a massive bet, the concept is there, and I thought what a powerful move this is.

[/ QUOTE ]

you'll see many high-stakes players doing just this. it's all math. if he has the best hand and you call, it's a disaster for you. if he is bluffing, folding is a disaster. you won't call that bet often. what could you have to call with other than 86? maybe a random hand here and there but c'mon. his bet is expected to succeed so often that the only bound on his making that play is you adjusting to it. then after a few of those you will likely overadjust and call the next one with one pair. that time he'll have the goods. Prahlad (Mahatma/Spirit Rock) used to do that all the time and was good at figuring out when it would take one or two pushes before you'd steel yourself for a big call. or at least he was good at it hu and shorthanded. longhanded he way overdid it for a while - i just waited for sets and checked/called all the way.

in microstakes opponents tend to either always have it there (or almost) or go way overboard using it and get clipped. so there's plenty of room to execute this strategy well. better be bankrolled for it though.

matt

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for your response on both of my questions. Good things to think about.

Thx.

QTip

08-24-2007, 07:35 PM

One more thing I wanted to just bring up here and perhaps jog some thoughts is pot control when oop. Sometimes it seems to me that when oop the best way to control the pot is to simply bet small as opposed to checking (unless you're against an opponent who is very passive and likes checking or betting small). However, these small bets look so weak and they just cry for someone to raise them. I guess the only way to get around this is to sometimes bet small with your big hands waiting to punish a raise (at least against observant opponents).

Anyway, I'm just trying to think of ways to excute pot control when oop and it's obvious that oop sucks for so many reasons.

inverted

08-25-2007, 01:05 AM

QTip I agree with you at low stakes OOP, people seem to be passive and not raise terribly often. But as to your other post I have seen the massive overbet on the river and sometimes even the turn alot this week.

Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em, $0.04 BB (6 handed) Hand History Converter Tool (http://poker-tools.flopturnriver.com/Hand-Converter.php) from FlopTurnRiver.com (http://www.flopturnriver.com) (Format: 2+2 Forums)

BB ($3.96)
Hero ($6.61)
MP ($5)
CO ($6.76)
Button ($4.76)
SB ($6.09)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif. MP posts a blind of $0.04.
Hero raises to $0.14, 1 fold, CO calls $0.14, 3 folds.

Flop: ($0.38) 2/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, A/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 5/images/graemlins/diamond.gif (2 players)
Hero bets $0.26, CO calls $0.26.

Turn: ($0.90) 4/images/graemlins/club.gif (2 players)
Hero bets $0.6, CO calls $0.60.

River: ($2.10) 2/images/graemlins/spade.gif (2 players)
Hero checks, CO calls $6.76 (All-In), Hero folds.

Final Pot: $8.86

Results in white below: 
CO doesn't show.
Outcome: CO wins $8.86. 

I've been trying to work out what to do about this/or how to use it in my game.

Sunny Mehta

08-25-2007, 01:20 PM

hey guys, we'll take the weekend off and start "Day 6" on Monday....

Matt Flynn

08-30-2007, 09:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
One more thing I wanted to just bring up here and perhaps jog some thoughts is pot control when oop. Sometimes it seems to me that when oop the best way to control the pot is to simply bet small as opposed to checking (unless you're against an opponent who is very passive and likes checking or betting small). However, these small bets look so weak and they just cry for someone to raise them. I guess the only way to get around this is to sometimes bet small with your big hands waiting to punish a raise (at least against observant opponents).

[/ QUOTE ]

absolutely. e.g., pot is $35. you bet $10. he calls. one street down, pot's only 1.6x. now say you bet $20 on the turn. that's a tricky bet because a lot of players make small bets with the nuts, so opponent may get confused. if he calls, pot is $95. two streets down and you're not even at 3x / haven't put in an SPR of 1 yet.

Genz

08-30-2007, 11:26 AM

I have a question, that I am not sure of, if it is answered in the book:

You say that when you don't want to commit, you shouldn't put more than 1/3 of your stack in the pot as a general goal. The whole chapter seems to assume that you are playing a medium or deep stack. I'd like to toy with the 40-60BB stack a little, so I am wondering if I have to adjust this guideline. I think I read in the book that it's always 1/3 of the effective stacks. So when I am playing a short stack with 40BB, I don't want to put more than 13BBs in the pot? Did I get that correctly? Or is the 1/3 portion to be understood playing a 100BB stack, so that I don't want to put more than 30BBs in a pot, that would leave me with a mere 10BBs when I am playing a short stack.

WarhammerIIC

08-30-2007, 11:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I have a question, that I am not sure of, if it is answered in the book:

You say that when you don't want to commit, you shouldn't put more than 1/3 of your stack in the pot as a general goal. The whole chapter seems to assume that you are playing a medium or deep stack. I'd like to toy with the 40-60BB stack a little, so I am wondering if I have to adjust this guideline. I think I read in the book that it's always 1/3 of the effective stacks. So when I am playing a short stack with 40BB, I don't want to put more than 13BBs in the pot? Did I get that correctly? Or is the 1/3 portion to be understood playing a 100BB stack, so that I don't want to put more than 30BBs in a pot, that would leave me with a mere 10BBs when I am playing a short stack.

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't want to put more than 1/3 of the EFFECTIVE stack in the pot. It doesn't matter if that's your stack or not.

The point of buying in short for 40-60BBs is that it's easier to get committed, so playing AK, AQ, JJ, etc is easier. In terms of PNL, it's easy to get 1/3 of the effective stack in, so it's easy to commit. So, yes, it still applies when you buy in short.

Genz

08-30-2007, 11:46 AM

OTOH I have to go easy on the cbetting then, because I commit so easily, haven't I?

cjk73

08-30-2007, 11:57 AM

C betting is bluffing and bluffing is "exempt" from the 1/3 rule because it is supposed to show a positive expectation on it's own.

WarhammerIIC

08-30-2007, 12:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
OTOH I have to go easy on the cbetting then, because I commit so easily, haven't I?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not really, but you might consider c-betting less. As the above poster said, c-betting as a bluff is exempt from the 1/3 rule because you're not committed.

In general, though, you're not looking to win by bluffing when you short stack. You're looking to hit TPTK and get all in.

Disconnected

08-30-2007, 12:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
OTOH I have to go easy on the cbetting then, because I commit so easily, haven't I?

[/ QUOTE ]

Stealing is an exception. You expect to make money on the steal, but you know you're not going to put it all in (well, unless you're doing it for a bluff).

Genz

08-30-2007, 03:02 PM

Ah. Thanks guys. I remember that bluffing isn't commiting bit. Now the pieces go together.

gmcarroll33

09-04-2007, 10:42 PM

I've got a question on the subject of pot control. Throughout the book I picked up on the idea of playing a small pot with just top pair by betting the flop and checking the turn and possibly just cc the river.

I've tried it out online with hands like weak aces and such and the turn check seems to be screaming weakness to the players I'm against. Like if I have A3 diamonds and it comes A-7-5 rainbow, if I bet the flop and get called by one player and the turn brings a blank and I check it seems to be insta pot bet just to test me, and I'm usually facing the commitment threshold at this point. Most of the time I think my opponent just thought I was trying to steal on the flop and all I've got is top pair with pathetic kicker but I still feel it might usually be best but I'm folding because I don't wan't to play a big pot with this type of one pair hand. Is there anything I'm doing wrong here or am I just playing weak?

I'm trying to learn to keep 1 pair hands small so I don't overcommit all the time with them or cross the threshold. Help me out if you can with this common type of situation

ChimneyImp

09-05-2007, 03:10 PM

Pot control by checking on the turn generally implies checking behind on the turn. Checking first to act is often interpreted as weakness and will be attacked by an aggressive player. This is one of the many reasons position is so important in NLHE.

Copernicus

09-05-2007, 06:24 PM

I apologize if this has been covered somewhere else or if this should be moved elsewhere, but a practical live alternative to the tables starting on pg 215 is needed especially for live games.

Ignoring the .5 BB for the SB completing in the one caller scenario, the following formula isnt too difficult to use live:

R=Raise size, T=Target SPR, S = effective stack size, C=anticipated number of callers

R= (S-2T)/(1+CT)

For large effective stacks and small target SPRs (as impractical as those raise sizes might be), S/CT is a good and obvious estimate.

Matt Flynn

09-06-2007, 09:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I apologize if this has been covered somewhere else or if this should be moved elsewhere, but a practical live alternative to the tables starting on pg 215 is needed especially for live games.

[/ QUOTE ]

can you memorize a line or two from the relevant tables?

SugarPush

09-12-2007, 01:34 PM

Hi, I just bought the book and am trying to figure out how to apply some of the comments. (Very good book by the way. I am enjoying the read and am thinking about things from a totally different perspective.

The following is a link to a thread that I posted on in the SSNL forum. I am trying to apply the concepts of pot control to a hand that someone else has posted. Would you mind reading the thread and my response on page two and letting me know if my thinking on the hand is correct?

The basic concepts are Pot Control vs protecting your hand.
Post on SSNL (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=12053088&page=0&vc=1#Pos t12053088)

Thanks!

Rocco

09-13-2007, 07:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Here are two examples where I tried putting pot control into practice, but I'm not sure if my timing was appropriate. Should I have been trying to protect my hand? This is definitely a tricky balancing act.

1) http://www.pokerhand.org/?1406569 Villain is loose preflop and postflop.

2) http://www.pokerhand.org/?1406596 Villain is loose in this hand, too. The HH didn't convert well, but I checked the turn and the final board is actually 35T,Q,4 (not 545,Q,4)

I'm not trying to turn this into a hand critique thread, but the pot control section of the book was fresh in my mind when I played both these hands. I'm naturally a very aggressive player, and would often bet these turns in the past. However, I just recently crossed over from MTTs, and I'm working hard to keep the value of TP/Overpairs in perspective when playing 100 BB deep.

Love to hear anyone's thoughts on when to protect your hand, and when to control the pot size.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, as already stated, cont betting a whiffed flop is not exercising pot control, because you intend to take it down immediately by betting. I usually exercise pot control when I have second pair, TPNK or a good hand on a board that is connected in more than one way.

In both your hands, the turn card actually helps your hand and especially in hand 2, I really dislike your check when the Q hit and you got exectly what you wanted. Even though the turn card in hand 1 completes a flush, it only helped a small part of your opponents range, so I'd continue betting.

Proper pot control is not easy. I feel like I have a long way to go before I master this part of the game.