PNL Study Group Day 5: Pot Control

[Sunny Mehta]

[ QUOTE ]
The link in the sticky to this thread isn't working.

[/ QUOTE ]

fixed

[cjk73]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are betting less when cbetting uncoordinated boards not neccessarily to exercise pot control (because you arent worried about pot control while bluffing), but moreso because this what you would do IF you had a top pair hand (or better)? That's the essence I am getting from Q and War...goot?

[WarhammerIIC]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are betting less when cbetting uncoordinated boards not neccessarily to exercise pot control (because you arent worried about pot control while bluffing), but moreso because this what you would do IF you had a top pair hand (or better)? That's the essence I am getting from Q and War...goot?

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. Uncoordinated boards are great for c-betting because a) you'll win a huge percentage of the time, and b) you don't have to c-bet as much, so you save money those times you don't win.

But you always have to do the same thing when c-betting as you would when you had a hand. If you bet a lot on uncoordinated boards when you c-bet, but bet a small amount with TPTK hands, observant opponents will eat you alive. At micro-stakes, they might not, but as you move up they will.

[Matt Flynn]

[ 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 ]

yes you are right. when you miss and are cbetting pot control is not the issue, although if you think you might fire twice consider how big you want the pot to be when you fire the second barrel.

[Vedocorban]

Here are two examples where I tried putting pot control into practice, but I'm not sure if my timing was appropriate. Should I have been trying to protect my hand? This is definitely a tricky balancing act.

1) http://www.pokerhand.org/?1406569 Villain is loose preflop and postflop.

2) http://www.pokerhand.org/?1406596 Villain is loose in this hand, too. The HH didn't convert well, but I checked the turn and the final board is actually 35T,Q,4 (not 545,Q,4)

I'm not trying to turn this into a hand critique thread, but the pot control section of the book was fresh in my mind when I played both these hands. I'm naturally a very aggressive player, and would often bet these turns in the past. However, I just recently crossed over from MTTs, and I'm working hard to keep the value of TP/Overpairs in perspective when playing 100 BB deep.

Love to hear anyone's thoughts on when to protect your hand, and when to control the pot size.

[Rocco]

[ QUOTE ]
Here are two examples where I tried putting pot control into practice, but I'm not sure if my timing was appropriate. Should I have been trying to protect my hand? This is definitely a tricky balancing act.

1) http://www.pokerhand.org/?1406569 Villain is loose preflop and postflop.

2) http://www.pokerhand.org/?1406596 Villain is loose in this hand, too. The HH didn't convert well, but I checked the turn and the final board is actually 35T,Q,4 (not 545,Q,4)

I'm not trying to turn this into a hand critique thread, but the pot control section of the book was fresh in my mind when I played both these hands. I'm naturally a very aggressive player, and would often bet these turns in the past. However, I just recently crossed over from MTTs, and I'm working hard to keep the value of TP/Overpairs in perspective when playing 100 BB deep.

Love to hear anyone's thoughts on when to protect your hand, and when to control the pot size.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, as already stated, cont betting a whiffed flop is not exercising pot control, because you intend to take it down immediately by betting. I usually exercise pot control when I have second pair, TPNK or a good hand on a board that is connected in more than one way.

In both your hands, the turn card actually helps your hand and especially in hand 2, I really dislike your check when the Q hit and you got exectly what you wanted. Even though the turn card in hand 1 completes a flush, it only helped a small part of your opponents range, so I'd continue betting.

Proper pot control is not easy. I feel like I have a long way to go before I master this part of the game.

[Dismas]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shouldn’t you’re answer also include the likelihood of you folding the best hand? The smaller the pot the less of a disaster of folding the best hand would be… So in essence the harder the hand is to play the smaller you should try and keep the pot.

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shouldn’t you’re answer also include the likelihood of you folding the best hand? The smaller the pot the less of a disaster of folding the best hand would be… So in essence the harder the hand is to play the smaller you should try and keep the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]


yes, likelihood of folding the best hand is very important.

the harder the hand is, though, sometimes you can make it easier by making a big bet or two.

[Sunny Mehta]

hey guys, we'll take the weekend off and start "Day 6" on Monday....

[Copernicus]

I apologize if this has been covered somewhere else or if this should be moved elsewhere, but a practical live alternative to the tables starting on pg 215 is needed especially for live games.

Ignoring the .5 BB for the SB completing in the one caller scenario, the following formula isnt too difficult to use live:

R=Raise size, T=Target SPR, S = effective stack size, C=anticipated number of callers

R= (S-2T)/(1+CT)

For large effective stacks and small target SPRs (as impractical as those raise sizes might be), S/CT is a good and obvious estimate.