PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment

[WarhammerIIC]

I'm committed to keeping the study group going.

[Sunny Mehta]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

alright, let's do it

[bozzer]

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

[Disconnected]

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.

[Sunny Mehta]

[ 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

[Disconnected]

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

[+EV]

[ 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

[WarhammerIIC]

[ 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.

[HighOctane]

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.

[Disconnected]

[ 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.