PNL Study Group Day 5: Pot Control

[Matt Flynn]

[ 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]

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]

[ 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]

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

[cjk73]

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]

[ 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]

[ 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]

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

[gmcarroll33]

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]

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.