Quote:
Originally Posted by Shai Hulud
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.