|
I
want to say a few words about the notion of being pot
committed, because I think it is a concept that is
sometimes misunderstood. Too many players make decisions
based on being “pot committed”, without fully
grasping the implications of their actions.
In a
nutshell, being pot committed refers to situations in
which a player puts so many of their chips in the middle
that it becomes mathematically correct to put in the
rest, in spite of what they’re holding. In other
words, the pot odds are laying such an overlay that a
player can justify calling with a huge range of hands.
Say
the blinds are at $10-$20, and you are one off the
button with a stack of $200. A player in early position
raises to $50, and another player smooth calls. You try
to take the pot right here, and raise to $100 (never
mind that this raise will never accomplish this, its
merely an example). Fine and dandy, except now the
button, with an identical stack of $200, moves all-in.
The blinds and original raiser fold, as well as the
smooth caller, bringing the action back to you. There is
now $330 in the pot, and it costs $100 to call. You are
getting 3.3 to 1 on your money, the right price to
continue with just about any 2 cards
That’s
the numbers part of being pot committed. That’s
clear-cut. Now we have to look into the grey area.
There
are times when a player has to say to hell with being
pot committed, and examine the situation in more detail.
For instance, you have to understand why you have become
pot committed – was the situation unavoidable, or was
it because of your own bad decisions? If you find
yourself past the point of no return with top pair,
you’re probably not getting away from the hand. But if
your own poor play gets you in too deep, it might be
prudent to ignore the math and muck your hand.
A
good example of bad play getting a player pot committed
occurred during the 2004 WPT Celebrity Invitational,
with Phil Laak and Humberto Brenes battling heads-up for
the title. With the blinds at $20,000 and $40,000, Laak
made an inexplicable pre-flop raise of $260,000 with the
9 5 of clubs. Humberto identified this raise as the
piece of stale cheese it was, and pushed Laak all-in for
the remainder of his chips. In the episode commentary
track, Laak talks about how the math dictated him
calling here, as he was getting just about the right
price against any hand other than an overpair. Antonio
Esfandiari, also on the commentary track, promptly told
Laak to check his head, and consider the idiocy of
calling off his tournament with 9 high. Sometimes you
have to wake up and smell the roses, and throw your shit
hands into the muck. If you make a move and it fails,
cut your losses. There’s no benefit in throwing good
money at bad plays.
And
that, my friends, is the rub. Being pot committed can
only guide you so far. At a certain point common sense
and a grasp of the bigger picture has to take over. Its
fine to have ¾ of your stack invested with a pair of
aces, and its even finer Pinot Grigio to put the other
¼ in. But when the action gets hairy and you’ve got
K3, realize that it’s better to push in a short stack
than bust out with this piece of shit. Remember,
there’s no shame in laying down a hand.
|
