Being Pot-Committed

Evaluating when to do so

In no-limit hold'em, when you are pot-committed, it means that you are going to play out the hand regardless of what your opponent does in the betting or what cards come on the board. You may be hoping that your hand is good or hoping to draw out. Either way, you're not folding.

When holding a pair, you have a hand that is hard to improve. Therefore, you have to be wary of committing too much money preflop when you think you must hit the flop in order to see the hand through for the remainder of your stack. Some people seem to think that because you flop a set one time in eight, pot odds of 7-to-1 are your break-even point, meaning you can call up to 12.5 percent of your stack with a tiny pair. There are two faulty assumptions in this argument. It is wrong to assume that you will win every time you flop a set, and it is wrong to assume that you will win all of your opponent's chips when you flop a set and are not outdrawn. I do not like to get more than 5 percent or 6 percent of my chips into the pot when I have a pair so small that my game plan is to flop a set or hit the door.

When holding two large cards like A-K or A-Q, there is more reason to invest a decent amount of your chips to try to hit the flop, since you will improve one time out of three. However, there is also a reason, especially with A-K, to go all in instead of just calling. You may win outright, you have five cards with which to improve instead of only three, and you will be getting your money in with substantially the best of it if your opponent has a slightly weaker ace. I believe that with A-K and a short stack, it is simply bad poker to just call a raise when there are only enough chips left in play for a pot-size reraise.

It is important for you to know at what point you ought to be pot-committed when facing a bet or raise, so that you do not err by calling with the hope of improving when you are really in a raise-or-fold situation. It is also helpful to know how large a wager you can make before your opponent ought to be pot-committed, and to have an opinion on whether he is a good enough player to properly recognize the situation.

I think a good rule of thumb is that when you will be getting 2-to-1 odds on your money in a preflop situation and either you or your opponent will be all in, you are pot-committed and must call. This is almost irrespective of your hand and opponent. I can sense many of you thinking, "This is poker, Bob; your opponent matters." In close situations, sure. If your opponent is crazy, OK. But here is why your opponent in this particular situation in which you are raised all in will matter less than you think:

When does the situation I am discussing usually arise? Mainly in tournament play, where you often have a short stack and also must take risks in order not to get ground out of your chips without a fight while you wait for a near-lock. That person you have seen play only a hand or two may be holding poor hands, and thinking to himself, "I am going to have to take a stand soon, or I will go broke from just taking the blinds." Many times, one of my poker students will tell me that he had an opponent pegged as a tight player, but he put all of his chips in on a relatively weak hand instead of a biggie.

The opposite side of the coin is when he has the opponent figured to be a loose, gambling player, but that player shows up with something decent when my student plays a pot with him. There can be several reasons for this. First, if the opponent happens to be dealt a good hand, he will have to play it, so you can never be sure that an opponent does not hold a good hand just because he is a loose player. Second, the opponent is probably aware of his image and knows that he is likely to get action, so he may start to play a little more circumspectly. Third, the opponent knows that holding a short stack (whether it is you or himself) means that he is likely to get action, so he is not likely to have a stone-cold bluff. Fourth, most of my students play like I suggest to them, which is to wait for a good hand, so that their opponents know that they will probably be facing a hand that's respectable enough to see it through. So, the opponent may not have a big hand, but he is prepared to be called and has something to fight with.

Let's look at a few concrete situations and see if we can put theory into practice. Suppose that you hold the A J when playing 50-100 blinds in a tournament and you open-raise to 400. How would you handle each of these scenarios?

1. The button, who has been playing tight, reraises to 1,400 all in. Everyone else has folded.

Answer: You should call without thinking about it. It costs you 1,000 to call and the pot will then be 2,950, so you are getting nearly 3-to-1 odds. Furthermore, you have a playable hand. You are almost even money against a pair lower than jacks, and will be getting within a hair of sufficient pot odds against any hand other than pocket aces.

2. The button, a good player with a big stack, reraises to 1,400. You started the hand with 3,000 and thus have 2,600 left.

Answer: I do not think it is good poker to call here; I would go all in or fold. If you go all in, you are putting in 2,600 to win 3,550 (his 3,000, your 400, and the blinds of 50 and 100). Your chance of catching him with a hand that you have a money overlay on is poor here (a pair of tens or less is unlikely), and the chance of him having aces is a lot higher than in the previous problem. It's close, but I would fold.

3. The button, a decent player, reraises to 1,000, and you have 4,000 left.

Answer: It is only 600 more to you, so the pot odds are excellent. On the other hand, the opponent set the price and made it enticing; why? I would fold, being afraid to help my hand by pairing. If I did pair, would it be good?