PNL Study Group Day 5: Pot Control
 

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.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 5: Pot Control
 

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?

Re: PNL Study Group Day 5: Pot Control
 

[ 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.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 5: Pot Control
 

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 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 9 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].
4 folds, Hero raises to $7, 1 fold, SB calls $6, 1 fold.

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

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

River: ($36) 4 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (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.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 5: Pot Control
 

[ 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.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 5: Pot Control
 

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

Re: PNL Study Group Day 5: Pot Control
 

[ 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?

Re: PNL Study Group Day 5: Pot Control
 

[ 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.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 5: Pot Control
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

fixed

Re: PNL Study Group Day 5: Pot Control
 

[ 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.