PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment

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

[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.