PNL Study Group Day 4: Commitment

[retleftolc]

Example:

.25 6max online 100BB stack. Hero has AK UTG, raises to $1. Gets called by button- loose typical short stack(30BB).

Flop 9 8 2 rainbow. C-bet gets you commited. Check gives you the option of fold or AI to a raise.

Are we willing to get it in here a very high percentage if there is a bet or raise on the flop?


Ret

[Sunny Mehta]

Hi PleasureGuy69,


[ QUOTE ]
Hi,

In this chapter, you guys talk about not building a big pot unless you are willing to go all in and to make a commitment decision before playing a big pot.

Ok I'll use a hand example for my question:

Say it's a 50NL game and effective stacks are 50$. You're sitting UTG and raise it up to $2 with QQ. Button who is a tag, is the only one who calls. The pot is now at $5. The flop comes:

TT5 rainbow.

You make a bet of 4$ but BB raises up $12. If you call/raise, you are passed the commitment threshold (as later mentioned in the book). Surely you can't raise because that will only fold out better hands, but many TAGS are known to raise on boards like this as a bluff, or if they have a smaller PP.

How committed are you? In this instance, the flop is where you make your commitment decision right? And if so, how do you proceed while taking into account the stack sizes, the pot size, and the conditions here?

[/ QUOTE ]

there is not one right answer in this hand. you could separate your preflop raise to see if there's something you could've done differently. if you like preflop, then you can look at the flop to see if there's something you could've done differently (i.e. - check). if you like betting, then you can basically just try to maximize from that point on using the best postflop betting line. i.e - call and then check turn. or call and then donk turn. or min-re-raise flop. etc.



[ QUOTE ]

----------------

I have another example which probably fits for later in the book when you talk about not folding when you put in 1/3 of your stack. However, you guys also talk about folding 1/3 of your stack when you know you're beat. This seems pretty obvious but the problem is that a lot of people fold for 1/3 of their stack too much thinking that they're beat (is this what you guys are trying to say?)

I guess that SPR helps you plan your hand so you don't end up in spots where you're faced with difficult decisions when you've already put in 1/3 of your stack. However, you guys do mention that folding after putting 1/3 of your stack in is right if you know you're beat. This is the tricky part.

For example, in a 50NL game, with 50$ effective stacks, Co raises to 2$ PF and he's a standard TAG. His range could be very wide here. Everyone folds to you and you are in BB with JJ. You repop to 8. You clearly are passed the commitment threshold here. CO calls your bet and you see a flop of:

572 rainbow. This is pretty good. The pot is $16 so you do the standard thing of betting around $10. He calls. The pot is now 36$. The turn is a blank. Let's say it's another 2 so the board is 5572.

The pot is now $36, and you've put in $18 which is more than 1/3 of your stack.

A lot of people recommend c/folding here. Is this bad because of your guideline of not folding after putting in 1/3 of your stack?

What should the commitment though process be in these two hands?

[/ QUOTE ]

again, you can separate the different points in the hand, but my general feeling is that if I played the hand exactly like you did up til the turn, I would fold on the turn just about never. i.e. - against 90+ percent of opponents, if you are willing to fold this turn then you made a mistake earlier in the hand.

-S

[PleasureGuy69]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi PleasureGuy69,


[ QUOTE ]

----------------

I have another example which probably fits for later in the book when you talk about not folding when you put in 1/3 of your stack. However, you guys also talk about folding 1/3 of your stack when you know you're beat. This seems pretty obvious but the problem is that a lot of people fold for 1/3 of their stack too much thinking that they're beat (is this what you guys are trying to say?)

I guess that SPR helps you plan your hand so you don't end up in spots where you're faced with difficult decisions when you've already put in 1/3 of your stack. However, you guys do mention that folding after putting 1/3 of your stack in is right if you know you're beat. This is the tricky part.

For example, in a 50NL game, with 50$ effective stacks, Co raises to 2$ PF and he's a standard TAG. His range could be very wide here. Everyone folds to you and you are in BB with JJ. You repop to 8. You clearly are passed the commitment threshold here. CO calls your bet and you see a flop of:

572 rainbow. This is pretty good. The pot is $16 so you do the standard thing of betting around $10. He calls. The pot is now 36$. The turn is a blank. Let's say it's another 2 so the board is 5572.

The pot is now $36, and you've put in $18 which is more than 1/3 of your stack.

A lot of people recommend c/folding here. Is this bad because of your guideline of not folding after putting in 1/3 of your stack?

What should the commitment though process be in these two hands?

[/ QUOTE ]

again, you can separate the different points in the hand, but my general feeling is that if I played the hand exactly like you did up til the turn, I would fold on the turn just about never. i.e. - against 90+ percent of opponents, if you are willing to fold this turn then you made a mistake earlier in the hand.

-S

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi,

Thanks for the prompt reply!

I made an edit to hand 2 in my original post that might be useful:

[ QUOTE ]
Edit:

In the 2nd hand example, you are known to 3 bet wide and CO could have called your 3 bet with AQ,AQ, and any pocket pair that is 77+ and perhaps some other crap 'cause he knows you 3 bet wide and could be looking to take the pot away from you later.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mentioned that if I'm willing to fold to the turn bet, that means I made a mistake earlier in the hand.

Could you elaborate on how you'd play it? The problem is, I don't see how we can NOT 3 bet here because if we only 3 bet with KK or AA, we'd never get action. Also, we're way ahead of villain's range even when he calls because we 3 bet lots.

The problem with the hand is that we bet because we're ahead of 77-1010 so he'd call 1 bet with that. However, it's hard to say if he'd call a turn bet with anything that we beat. Also, since the pot is so large and he probably thinks we're committed, he might not bet unless he has us beat.

Plz clarify on how to not to make a commitment mistake on this hand.

[+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

[Sunny Mehta]

a little pressed for time at the moment, perhaps others can chime in as well.


[ QUOTE ]
The problem is, I don't see how we can NOT 3 bet here because if we only 3 bet with KK or AA, we'd never get action.

[/ QUOTE ]

just because you don't 3-bet jacks doesn't mean you have to only 3-bet AA and KK.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, we're way ahead of villain's range even when he calls because we 3 bet lots.

The problem with the hand is that we bet because we're ahead of 77-1010 so he'd call 1 bet with that. However, it's hard to say if he'd call a turn bet with anything that we beat. Also, since the pot is so large and he probably thinks we're committed, he might not bet unless he has us beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

if 88-TT are a big part of his range then you answered your own question. if you're saying he never commits with those hands on this turn with one psb left, regardless of whether you check or bet, my general feeling is that you're underestimating his commitment range. however, if he really plays that tightly, you can basically exploit the hell out of him by utilizing fold equity, like, a lot.

[Sunny Mehta]

[ 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.


[/ QUOTE ]

if you're c-betting on a rag board just to pick up the pot, you're bluffing. it's totally fine to cross the commitment threshold if you're bluffing. remember all the exceptions we list and give examples for.

[WarhammerIIC]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.


[/ QUOTE ]

if you're c-betting on a rag board just to pick up the pot, you're bluffing. it's totally fine to cross the commitment threshold if you're bluffing. remember all the exceptions we list and give examples for.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was going to mention this a little earlier, but I think some are getting too caught up in the "1/3 of your stack in the pot means you have to commit" point. Yes, that's true for the most part, but there are a slew of exceptions in the book. If you have a hand, yeah, you're going to want to think about whether or not you're committed when 1/3 goes in. But if you don't have a hand, you can put 1/3 in because you're not committed and will fold easily if you find resistance. That's pretty much how a huge percentage of your c-bets will go.

There are other exceptions, but putting in over 1/3 on a bluff is the most common since it happens on a huge percentage of hands. Constantly folding hands you don't want to get all in with because you're afraid of getting 1/3 of your stack in there is weak-tight and definitely not what the book is advocating.

[Matt Flynn]

hi everyone i'm here just buried in work. will come back later today.

commitment just means figure out whether you want to get all-in or are willing to get all-in. answering that question can radically change how you approach a hand. if you aren't committed, be very careful about building a big pot.

it's simple but powerful.

[bozzer]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah I realised that this is the bit about commitment in the fundamentals chapter, which I found pretty straight forward.

Just one comment i guess is that committed in poker terms is often used in quite negative terms 'i'm pot committed so i have to call'. i think this is similar to the description of being 'reluctantly committed' in the book. But the authors do a good job of explaining that commitment is (or should be) a choice. I like the term 'playing for stacks' myself [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Quick quiz (no looking at the book) - what is the most important factor in determining whether you are committed? (i thought this could have been emphasised a touch more.)

[aaaaa]

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.

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.