PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

I'm committed to keeping the study group going.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

alright, let's do it

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

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

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

Once again, I forgot to bring my book to work, so I could have my references right [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]. 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.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

[ 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.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

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.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

[ 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.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

[ QUOTE ]
Once again, I forgot to bring my book to work, so I could have my references right [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]. 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

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

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

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

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.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

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

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

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

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

[ 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.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once again, I forgot to bring my book to work, so I could have my references right [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]. 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

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

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.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

[ 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.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

[ 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.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

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.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

[ 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 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

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.)

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

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.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

@ 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?

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

[ 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.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

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.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

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.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

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.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

[ 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! [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

my bad.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

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?

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

[ 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'.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

[ 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.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

[ 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.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

[ 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.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

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.........

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

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 from 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[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img].
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[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 5[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] <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[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">CO bets $19</font>, Hero calls $19.

River: ($70) A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] <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.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

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 Hand History Converter)

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

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

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

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

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

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

[ 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 Hand History Converter)

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

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

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

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

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?

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

[ 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.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

[ 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.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment
 

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