I understand this is extremely vague but in your experiences, when you change gears from making a decision related to immediate pot odds to the point where you make a pot odds decision that incorporates their entire remaining stack... how much of a villains stack needs to be committed before you push him over that tipping point?

It's awkwardly worded I know but I'll give an attempt at an example of what I mean. Say vilian has invested 10% of his stack, then he'll be far less likely to call off his entire stack as compared to if he'd invested 90%. So where do you feel the sweet spot is between these two percentage points?

For me I've been looking at this lately and it's around 30-40%. But the thing is that many players (at least at live poker, low limit) don't even keep track of how much they've invested in a hand, I've seen so many people leave 20bb's behind after folding a river having invested >100bb's thus far.

But anyway, once I've put in 30% of my stack, that is the decision point. "Do I continue?", etc. And if I go over 30% I am pretty much committed.

There's a good COTM about it here

Awesome blue. Thanks for posting that. I'll have a look now.

Pot commitment is something you want the villain to feel, not something you want to feel yourself. The reason is that it justifies a call when you know that you are beat. You want your villains calling you when you have the nuts and they talk themselves into calling because you might be bluffing. For you, it shouldn't exist.

There's two ways to avoid it. First, it doesn't matter if I put 80% of my stack in on the turn. If the villain has a FD and it hits on the river, I'm folding. So never feel when it is obvious you are beat to call because most of your stack is in the pot. It happens.

The second is that the most important decision you make in a NLHE poker hand is on the flop. This is critical when you are calling especially. If you plan to fold on a later street to continued betting, it is better to fold on the flop. If you're going to call him down if the board texture doesn't change, then call. You're not pot committed, you're making the decision to put your stack in if necessary. If you are betting, you want to decide on the flop if you want the bet sizing to lead to stacking off. If not, you size your bets to be smaller so you aren't.

What exactly is pot commitment? I've heard it described as the point at which you have invested so much of your stack, that it does not make any sense to fold....but that doesn't make much sense. if I knew for certain I was behind on the river, I would fold my last 3 BB even if I had invested 50 BB.

Is it the point at which the stack to pot ratio dictates a call with almost any hand, given the chances that you could suck out (if not on the river) or that the villain is bluffing (on the river).

For example, if I started the hand with 20 bb with A2, the villain bets 2.5 bb, and I call from the big blind. Flop comes up Q94 and the villain bets 4 bb, and I call. Turn is 3 and villain bets 8 bb and I call. The river is 6, so now I just have A high, and villain has been betting the whole time like he has at least a good pair. I hav einvested 14.5 BB, and only have 5.5 bb left. If the villain bets 5.5 bb, do I call? Am I pot committed? All I beat right now are bluffs, but I have over 75% of my stack in the pot.

most times when you have most of your stack in you call as you cant let a bluff beat you and also if seen you are toast for the future to bluffs.

so play your hands so this doesnt hardly ever come up.

30% is a good time to make the play or fold decision.

i assume this is a donkament, and you should probably be making up your mind preflop

At 20 BB, I would probably not be making my mind up pre, but would probably have check shoved the flop.

The point of my post, though, was that i am not sure I understand what pot commitment is. It is one of those phrases everyone uses, but I am not sure the underlying logic of it is clear. Is it simply the point where the showdown equity of bluff catchers alone warrants a call? I don't fall into the school of thought that states that if you have called over 70% of your stack, you have to call down the rest no matter what (and yes, i know it is a mistake to be calling when your stack to pot ratio gets to that point, you should be shoving or folding).

nothing better to see a guy fold on the end for a tiny bet in a big pot. sooner or later i am going to find a spot to run him off a big pot. he has showed his colors.

that's the point. you're not recognising that by just calling pre, you're committing far too much of your stack to then think about folding later - your decision whether to commit to the pot comes preflop with these stacks. if he's on the tight side and you're behind his range, then fold, if he's loose enough that you're ahead of his range, or you think he folds to often, then shove.

lol. i knew this was going to happen. i was trying to come up with a hypothetical that would isolate the concept of pot commitment without getting into a strategy discussion.

I'm developing an extensive "training" poker glossary. Here is what I have for pot commitment

Pot committed – having placed so much of your stack into the pot, the pot odds will dictate that you should continue betting at the next opportunity

Example: You started the hand with a stack of 60. After post flop play the pot is 100, with you contributing 40, villain 40 and others who folded 20. Your stack is now 20 and you have middle pair. Villain goes all-in on the turn with a likely strong hand. Pot is now 120. You are getting 6 to 1 pot odds, meaning you need equity of 1/7 = 15% to call. Those odds commit you to call for your low/middle pair has that equity.

A few of things I feel are missing is:
- What your hand is compared to the board?
- What type of opponent(s) in the hand?
- Is this a tournament or cash game?
- If tournament, how many BB do you have compared to the blinds? When are the blinds going up? Are you on the bubble?

For me, there has to be a lot more information before I am "POT COMMITTED".

I have a question of my own as an extension to the OP. A couple of you mentioned after 30%, your committed. Can you explain your reason for that?

well after putting in a third of your stack you are getting around 2 to 1. so raising or betting it all at that point usually makes you less than that a dog.

Got it. Thanks!

If he's hit bottom or middle pair then he's usually on a 5 outs draw for 2 pair or trips which is closer to 11% equity on the turn but still I get your point

thats pot committed because of the odds. and an easy one.

but there is being pot committed where you do not know where you stand in the hand and must make a decision to play on or not. and thats where the 30% idea comes from. around that figure you usually but not always of course are better off just picking your spot to get it in.

theres a ton of times at a cash table where the pot odds mean less than table dynamics.

I suppose this has some aspects of the math vs feel issue. Yes, dynamics are important, and the best use is to incorporate them into your pot odds vs card odds analysis whenever possible.

i think if pot odds are good you take them every time, unless you can make a case for not.
that is one of the definitive things in poker. like getting 6 to 5 on flipping a coin that you know is fair and not a trick.