![]() "Pot committed" should never become an excuse for making bad calls especially on the river. If you have a busted 9 high draw on the river, you are not "pot committed", even you already put in 90% of your stack.Īnd even if you have 45% of your stack in the pot, you can still fold, if the river card was really bad for your hand and for instance completed both flush and straight draws, and you just dont think, your opponent is bluffing often enough. The 1/3 of your stack advice is classical, but mostly apply to preflop and flop situations, where equities run close. It basically mean, that you are getting to good odds to fold, if Villain push all in. I think, "pot committed" is mostly a concept from before, much of the modern software became available to make poker math easier to handle. So I'm looking for wisdom in this area myself, I'd say being "pot-committed" in a cash game is definitely a thing but much less of a factor on the river as plays & hands are more polarized in a tourney & decisions much easier to make as you're usually "pot-committed" after the flop when under 20 BB chasing draws or defending hands. I suffer a lot from overcalling when the odds aren't in my favor because I feel pot comitted, more so in cash games & rightly so as there are no ICM implications & chips are valued in cash games, repeating myself This is a spot I've encountered a lot in cash games & tournaments!! We're more used to these spots in tournaments, as you wrote, & more comfortable with in a tourney as opposed to a cash games where you strive to grab every value on almost each street but face hard decision points often when you're bet into unexpectedly or facing an all in in a marginal spot. Wow,this is a really great question! I'm glad you asked!to see what responses you may get! What are your thoughts? is this too big of a question to ask in a forum? even if I am left with peanuts in my stack.Īt the same time, I'm also trying to understand the idea of playing with the effective stack size in mind when playing cash games and wondering whether and how that translates to being "pot-committed" in tourney play. If a major scare card comes on the river, then I need to be willing to fold if I think I have a losing hand. So my long-term winrate is the focus, not on short term gains. Even if fold on the river and only have 25% of my stack left, at least I would still have those chips left for when I refill my buy-in. am I willing to put my whole stack on this hand? If so, then I might as well shove now (like on the turn) rather than waiting for the river if I don't have the nuts but think I can win the hand regardless.īut as I step back, I wonder how much merit this idea really has in cash game play. In cash games, I can say that have had this thought work itself into my play on the turn or river. ![]() The whole idea is to win chips and stay ahead in the tournament, while being crippled by folding on a later street and being left with a small stack can be the effective end of your tournament life. The only real exception to this could be when you have a monster hand and you want to slowly put more money into the pot and giving opponents odds to call each bet. and in so doing, you are encouraged to shove at that point rather than a standard sized bet followed by another bet on next next street to maximize fold equity on the earlier street. The idea of being post-committed, as far as I can recall, is the idea that once you have committed ~ 1/2 your stack into the pot, you are more or less pot-committed. I'll preface this question by saying that I've played the vast majority of my poker in tournaments. ![]() ![]() How much does being "pot-committed" from tournament play translate to cash games? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |