I once heard an extremely descriptive term or phrase which described the mental state of having loss or sacrifice mentally locking one into a specific strategy or course of action in order to validate the sacrifice. Anyone know what that term is?

Examples:
"I ignored my girlfriend's ultimatum and dropped out of school to go pro, so now I -have- to make it work."

"My son lost two fingers on his left hand in a meat slicer accident. How can I tell him now that I made a mistake opening a butcher shop?"

There's an element of "not throwing good money after the bad," in these situations, but I don't think that was the phrase. Again, it was the state of wanting to validate whatever sacrifices one has made by bearing down in the current strategy or course of action.

Much appreciated.

Stubborness

Addiction

Listen to any George Bush speech made since 2002. I'd imagine it's in there somewhere.

The term is called "sunk cost fallacy".

"sunk cost fallacy" that's it! Here's an nice article on it
Skeptic's Dictionary

Lost many chips defending my blinds this way!

Here's another article on sunk cost fallacy.

http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/201...ut-your-losses

Some of the examples are wrong though aren't they?

I often hear people talking about pot commitment, saying things like "I've invested half of my stack so I can't fold." I've even seen this idea expressed as legitimate in poker books. In "Professional No Limit Hold Em" the authors write, "Don't put in over 1/3 of your starting stack and then fold" (p. 142).

But isn't this just the poker equivalent of the sunk cost fallacy? I can think of cases we should fold almost regardless of how much we've sunk. And many cases we should fold after investing just 1/3 our stack.

Example 1 (we put in 2/3 our stack and then fold)

2/5 game with 1k stacks, H has 6c6s in the BB, UTG 20, MP, LJ, BTN, and H call.

Flop (100) As7d6d

H x. UTG 50, BTN calls, H x/r to 200, UTG and BTN call.

Turn (700) As7d6d3d

H x. UTG 450. BTN calls. H is almost certain he is beat but calls drawing to a boat getting 3.55:1 direct odds with implied odds ranging from 4.29:1 to 5:1 depending on whether we can stack one or both players on the river when we hit.

River (2050) As7d6d3d5d

H x. UTG jams. BTN snap calls. H?

H folds. UTG shows AKdd and BTN wins with 5s4d

This is an extreme example but we've invested over 2/3 our stack getting over 8 to 1 with a set. Yet it's an easy fold.

Example 2: (We put in over 1/3 of our starting stack and then fold.)

Same 2/5 game with 1k stacks. H has JJdc OTB. A LAG in MP 25, LJ calls, CO calls, and we 3 bet to 125. MP and BB call.

Flop (400) Ts6d2c

BB and MP x. H 250. BB jams for 625 more. MP folds. H?

BB is a nit. There are no 2p combos or strong draws. He virtually never bluffs here or jams value weaker than 2p. We fold and he shows TsTd.

We've invested over 1/3 our starting stack in a pretty standard spot and this is a super easy fold with BB as described. Why would we torch the rest of our stack because of "pot commitment"?

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

So is there any legitimacy to the concept of pot commitment, the idea of a commitment threshold, etc., or is it all just illustrative of the sunk cost fallacy?

Your examples are exceptions that only justify the rule. Of course there are unique situations, such as a river spot against 2 players, where if even Villain 1 is bluffing, Villain 2 has to have it. Or your second example vs. an OMC Villain who always has it and never bluffs.

However, on the balance good players very rarely put 1/2 or 2/3 of their stacks in only to later fold.

Yes, generally speaking making a bad call because of how much you've already invested in the hand is an example of the sunk costs fallacy.

The "don't invest more than 1/3 of your stack and fold" advice is different, however. What they're advising is to think ahead and don't commit 1/3 of your stack unless you are committed to the hand. A well-timed bluff with a high degree of success might be the one exception.

I was just wondering if there was any theoretical basis for it. My counterexamples don't need to be common.

The whole "the exception proves the rule" thing is nonsense obviously. Actually exceptions do the opposite. This is the logical basis of "proof by contradiction".

So I get planning your hand but I hear pot commitment invoked all the time to justify decisions (sometimes correct and sometimes not) with no other reason given. Just seems lazy.

Preflop if you already have 1/3 of the effective stack in, you generally have the equity to call off the rest because it's rare that villain will be so face up as e.g. KK+ that you know you can just fold with 40% of your stack already in.

Even if you have something like JTo then you have 33% equity against a range of maybe 10% of hands, so you have odds to call off the remaining 2/3 of your stack to potential get to double the original stack

I don't think it makes sense postflop to say "I need to call this near pot-size shove on the river as I'm already pot-committed".

I like that quote someone had about SPR that it doesn't mean you have to be a fool. Generally, I follow SPR for pot commitment but not always.