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.

[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.

[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].

[PleasureGuy69]

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?

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

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?


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

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.