Ring game strategy: Pot control and commitment bets

Loosely paraphrasing Ed Miller, "Big hands deserve big pots; small hands deserve small pots".

"Big" and "Small" are relative, and that requires some experience in the game to determine how strong your hand is relative to your opponent's hand strength and their likelihood to stack with weaker hands.

A set is almost always a strong hand and we usually want to build as big a pot as possible with it, whereas a one-pair hand is something we usually want to get a cheap showdown with. There are exceptions though.

Going to one extreme, if we're up against a very loose-passive player, we want to value bet the hell out of AA, TPTK and other similar hands because our opponent will look us up extremely light - those types of hands are considered "big" hands in this situation.

Moving to the other end of the spectrum, we usually want to maintain pot control with those hands against a nit (very tight player) because our opponent in this case isn't going to put a lot of money in the middle without a very strong hand - one so strong that it may have us beat. These hands are considered "smaller" hands in this situation.

Value betting our big hands:

100bb effective stacks, 100nl full ring NLHE.

Hero is a standard tight aggressive player who mixes it up occasionally.
Villain is a very loose player who we've seen call down weak top pair hands.

Now at this point we step back and evaluate our situation. Preflop was pretty straightforward so I don't think we need to touch on that.

First, stack sizes: both players started the hand with 100bb stacks, or $100. After the reraises they now both have $86.5 left.

Next, our relative hand strength: villain raised in a stealing position and called a reraise so this means he most probably has some type of medium-big pair, two big cards, or some other weird hand. KK would have reraised preflop, and 22 would probably have folded. K8 is a possibility, but a slim one. We're clearly way ahead of his range at this point as the only hand we're really afraid of is 88.

So what's our goal in the hand? Well we're way ahead of his range, know he calls down light, so all this adds up to value betting our hand and trying to get our whole stack in. The best way to do so is to bet!

Now before just firing out a bet, we have to think about our bet sizing. Primarily we want to look at what sized bets leave us (and our opponent) with what sized stacks on the turn/river, and how committed we leave our opponent. That is our goal after all.

The pot is $27.5, and we each have $86.5 left. If we bet $23 and he calls, the pot will then be $73.5 ($23+$23+$27.5). Our stack sizes would be $63.5 each. So on the turn we shove $63.5, he's now looking at a smaller than pot sized bet, and is committed to call with most of the hands he called the flop with (mainly Kx). That flop bet is called a commitment bet.

I might actually bet more (say $25-full pot) in this situation to commit him more on the turn.

Maintaining pot control with our small hands:

Another example - similar situation, this time we're up against a nit.

Stack sizes: we're left with $86.5 each again.

Relative hand strength: This time our opponent's hand strength is much more polarized, ie we can narrow it down quite a bit. We're now most probably up against either something that crushes us (Ax, 88) or something we crush (QQ-99, KQ).

This is a perfect example of the wa/wb concept, and is also a perfect spot for pot control.

The basic idea here is that if we bet, we don't get action from the hands we beat, and only give money to better hands. By checking we induce bets from hands that are either bluffing (KQ), or hands that are now turning their hand into a bluff (99-QQ). We also save money against those better hands (Ax, 88). This concept is a little hard to grasp for a lot of people, and I suggest reading the above link to get a better explanation.

Another example of pot control vs same villain:

In this spot we should probably aim to only bet two streets instead of all 3 because again we don't get much action from worse hands if we do bet all 3 streets strong.

Using commitment bets for bluffs:

In my experience this won't work too well against weaker (aka bad) opponents since they don't usually think about how committed they are to a hand, but this is a great tool against tight regulars or other thinking players.

The concept here is that basically you're betting as though you had a set or a strong overpair, and that your opponent knows that not only does he have to call a strong bet now, but he'll probably have to call another strong bet on a later street - something that he, hopefully for you, can't do with his current hand.

An example:

100nl FR, 100bb effective stacks, villain is a tag as are we.

This is about a good a spot as you could hope for a double barrel commitment bet bluff (mouthful, isn't it).

At this point we know villain most probably has some type of small-med pair (other hands are in his range but we'll just make this assumption for simplicity).

Now he knows we could have been c-betting with all types of hand (AK, TT, 67s, J9, KQ, etc etc), but that ace hits our range pretty hard since we're raising with a lot of aces preflop.

At this point we can again represent something much stronger than what we have, and put out a commitment bet. We want to show our opponent that we're committed to the hand without actually committing ourselves.

So if we bet $17, villain now has a nasty nasty decision. If he calls, the pot will be $55.5, he'll only have $72.5 left, and could very well be facing another very scary ~$40 river bet. Not to mention all the T/J/Q/K/7/8 cards that could drop for him.

So therein lies the concept - by betting $17 on that turn, we're threatening almost his whole stack, and he'll have a very hard time calling the bet *if* he's a smart enough player to realize this.

I think Ed Miller's Professional No Limit Hold'em goes into a lot of depth with these concepts, but I admittedly haven't read it myself yet.

Anyways thanks for getting this far and I hope the article helped in some way. As always I'm open to any criticism or argument, but please give some reasoning to back whatever you want to say

-ChuckTs

How prevalent do you think "floating" a c-bet is at the various levels (including $10NL ) ?

This has been happening a lot to me lately on Stars $50nl, ( this can obv be confused with someone who is slowplaying a monster ) but I have definaately noticed it more so. I have even tried it myself with some success.

Excellent post Chuck and something I need to look at more closely re the chk on the flop and the WA/AB theory. I don't know about you but it's really tricky to balance this intricate plays combined with multi tabling.

Great stuff Chuck.

Professional No Limit does deal a lot with commitment and planning hands around it. The basic rule the the authors give is that once the pot is 1/3 of the smaller remaining that player should be committed (and rarely fold). They also advise that once 10% of the effective stack has gone in you need to plan for commitment and that if you routinely put in 10% of your stack, call a bet, and then fold, you're making a mistake.

So in your example:
Hero is in the CO with K♣K♥

Folds to Villain in MP1 who raises to $4
Folds to Hero on the BTN
Hero reraises to $13.5
MP1 calls

Flop comes A♥8♣2♠, pot size is now $28.5

We've put more than 10% of our stack in the pot AND the pot is near 1/3 of our remaining stack, so we need to exercise pot control because against this opponent with a Ace on board we are clearly not committed.

heh, I don't think you'll see it much at 10nl, nor do I think it would be that effective unless you've got a solid read on your opponent.

I agree it's really something you only see at 50nl+ from tags, whereas lags will float at any level - not necessarily even knowing what they're doing.

I think really it's a matter of information. I personally don't float someone until I have a good number of hands on them and know I can take the pot away from them at a good frequency.

Well regarding the multitabling it's just an experience thing again. I'm sure you remember when you couldn't even imagine playing 4+ tables and now it's second nature. Just try to think your opponents' hand ranges through every hand and see what types of actions/lines are best for the whole hand instead of one street.

I actually have a question about WA/WB. What happens when you don't have position as in the example? I ran into that at least 3 times in my most recent session tonight. When we have position we have a choice between a free card and betting. When we're OOP we no longer have that choice. For example I've raised KK preflop and the flop comes Axx (nothing scary other than the A, but I figure I'm way behind Ax or a set and I'm way ahead of anything else).

It's still the same deal zach, it just becomes much tougher to play (esp against laggier players since you'll be facing 2 or 3 barrels more often).

Those spots I'm more likely to try and end the hand on the flop rather than extract value, but it all comes down to your comfort level.

Here's an example from today if it helps:

POKERSTARS GAME #15117745425: HOLD'EM NO LIMIT ($0.50/$1.00) - 2008/02/07 - 05:18:52 (ET)
Table 'Aisakos III' 9-max Seat #4 is the button
Seat 1: getod_wiz ($71.75 in chips)
Seat 2: Dead&Broken ($42.55 in chips)
Seat 3: ponchoko ($96.50 in chips)
Seat 4: THE HAGUE 13 ($61.10 in chips)
Seat 5: Kojak77 ($322.95 in chips)
Seat 6: busca9 ($42.15 in chips)
Seat 7: jhapa ($59 in chips)
Seat 8: oxyggg ($89.70 in chips)
Seat 9: ChuckTs ($136.85 in chips)
Kojak77: posts small blind $0.50
busca9: posts big blind $1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to ChuckTs [Qd Qh]
jhapa: folds
oxyggg: folds
ChuckTs: raises $2.50 to $3.50
getod_wiz: folds
Dead&Broken: folds
ponchoko: folds
THE HAGUE 13: calls $3.50
Kojak77: calls $3
busca9: folds
*** FLOP *** [8s Kc 8d]
Kojak77: checks
ChuckTs: checks
THE HAGUE 13: bets $4
Kojak77: folds
ChuckTs: calls $4
*** TURN *** [8s Kc 8d] K♠
ChuckTs: checks
THE HAGUE 13: bets $17
ChuckTs: calls $17
*** RIVER *** [8s Kc 8d Ks] 7♣
ChuckTs: checks
THE HAGUE 13: checks
*** SHOW DOWN ***
ChuckTs: shows [Qd Qh] (two pair, Kings and Queens)
THE HAGUE 13: mucks hand
ChuckTs collected $50.90 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $53.50 | Rake $2.60
Board [8s Kc 8d Ks 7c]
Seat 1: getod_wiz folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 2: Dead&Broken folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 3: ponchoko folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 4: THE HAGUE 13 (button) mucked [9s Jc]
Seat 5: Kojak77 (small blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 6: busca9 (big blind) folded before Flop
Seat 7: jhapa folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 8: oxyggg folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 9: ChuckTs showed [Qd Qh] and won ($50.90) with two pair, Kings and Queens

(villain was a lag, and yes I was prob folding to a riv bet)

Nice job, Professor Chuck.

great thread. i am about to start the long task of plowing my way through Golden archive as the wa/wb concept thread opened my eyes and your thread chuck cetainly helped understand that concept a bit better.

Concerning floating c-bets, i do it rarely and only if i have decent amount of hands on villian. Usually i only do it verse relatively TAGish(15-20VPIP) players who also have a high c-bet frequency. Thes players will usually fold to a check/raise(when your out of positon) on any flop that they c-bet unless the have a monster, its pretty much the same when you have position and raise their supposed c-bet. The added value of floating c-bets verse TAG players is the fold 2nd pair and on occasions a TPWK. Note this is at $25NL FR.

Thanks Chuck that's a really useful post, very clearly and precisely explained. I haven't read that wa/wb thread yet, but certainly will. Just one question, are the blinds in your example SB $1 and BB $2

No - 100nl means 0.50/1.00 blinds with $100 max buyin.

OK thanks again, and apologies for the n00b question
That makes sense actually, then the raises are 4 x BB...

No need for any apology

ok well the problem is here the logic from the wa/wb thread doesn't follow. The point was it's useless to bet the flop because the turn bet will be approximately the size of your flop bet. But when you plan on calling 2 bets it almost seems better to bet the flop. Obviously this begins to depend on table image and opponents, but you committed $21 after the wa/wb moment. If you bet out on the flop around $6 or $7, you find out where you stand for $6 or $7, rather than $21. In a scenario where you think he will bluff a lot, especially double barelling, I like your play. But against most straightforward opponents (that still bluff), is there any logic as to why we check and call 2 streets? In position I understand perfectly, but I'm still a little shaky on the logic of doing this OOP.

Zach,

If we bet and get called, we're in (some) trouble.
If we check and he bets, we're in (some) trouble.

Now, if our opponent is very loose then betting is always best, because our equity is still very good even when we're called.

If our opponent is very aggressive then checking is always best, because our equity is still very good even when he bets.

But when he's somewhere in between, when our equity is roughly the same if we bet and get called, or check and call a bet, there's no profit to gain from betting or calling, because that's no longer a variable. We gain and lose as much regardless. However, if we look at another variable - implied odds - then checking becomes better.

Denying our opponents implied odds while trying to get them to commit future chips is the reason to play this WA/WB, even out of position. "we bet, he calls" and "we check, he bets, we call" are not the only two options when we make our flop decision. "We check, he checks" is always a common scenario. In fact, a very common scenario. By checking, we allow him a free card - a free card that is not likely to cost us much, because he's either already ahead (WA) of us, or he's drawing to a maximum of three outs. But he doesn't necessarily know that he only has three outs, he might believe he has six. It's very similar to slowplaying.

In other words, we don't check because we're happy to call a bet; we check and hope that he will check as well. If we bet, we'll always pay to see the turn. If we check, we will often continue for free.

Oh ok that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation, I guess the fact that Chuck called a double barrel in a wa/wb situation threw me off, but I guess that was just read-specific that the opponent was very aggressive.

Assuming i was the villian and i had the 8, i would not bet that much on the turn, now that there is two K on the board and i might be behind now, but i wont be checking here either. The turn bet is either he has a K, any pocket pairs from below TT, or total air.

Therefore, i was thinking will a check-min raise on the turn be effective in avoiding the showdown and perhaps make the villian fold his hand? or have we commit ourselves to possibly facing an all in prematurely on the turn instead of the river ? The villian has ~$36 after making the turn bet.

Great article chuck. 1 quick question

In the example where you used pocket jacks, you said you would be aiming to bet 2 streets hard and not all 3. I was just wondering, would you do the same with aces or kings and just bet 2 streets hard?

Since with an overpair i generally bet all 3 streets hard and was just wondering if this is a flaw in my game and possible -ev

We're often calling two barrels wa/wb (esp with position though). I actually did leave myself in a somewhat tougher situation there than I thought (only leaving him with a <PSB on the river), but I much prefer checking in that spot to betting for reasons mentioned.

Well it's all situational again. In that same example I'm probably going to get a lot more money in with AA because he's much more likely to hold TT-KK whereas in the JJ example, we're only really ahead of AK and TT.

Usually I bet the flop/turn (barring scare cards), and use my reads to determine whether I want to bet the river.

Just a side note - pot control is something you exercise when you're not sure you're ahead, or when your hand is not likely to be ahead. If your reads are good enough to know you're way ahead of villain's range and that he'll call you down (ie AA on that 98x flop if I know he's got KK or whatever), then 3-barreling is fine.

I would say that unless we know the villain is really bad and will call all the way with just top pair, betting all three streets with any overpair may not be the best idea (especially if we're talking about 2/3 to pot-sized bets). Single pair hands generally don't hold up in these situations. This would be doubly true if we had large stacks where our villain could threaten us with a reraise all-in on the river for another significant bet. How confident would we be even with AA if we've been called all the way to the river and then reraised?

Ahh ok i see now, cheer chuck, again great article

Chiefer and I were talking about this last night. Just thought I'd say this is a great article and I think it got burried in here so I'm bumping it as well