|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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?
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: PNL Study Group Day 5: Pot Control
[ 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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: PNL Study Group Day 5: Pot Control
[ 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 [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. [/ 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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: PNL Study Group Day 5: Pot Control
[ 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 [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. [/ 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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: PNL Study Group Day 5: Pot Control
The link in the sticky to this thread isn't working.
|
|
|