How much does being "pot-committed" from tournament play translate to cash games?

How much does being "pot-committed" from tournament play translate to cash games?

I'll preface this question by saying that I've played the vast majority of my poker in tournaments. The idea of being post-committed, as far as I can recall, is the idea that once you have committed ~ 1/2 your stack into the pot, you are more or less pot-committed... and in so doing, you are encouraged to shove at that point rather than a standard sized bet followed by another bet on next next street to maximize fold equity on the earlier street. The only real exception to this could be when you have a monster hand and you want to slowly put more money into the pot and giving opponents odds to call each bet. The whole idea is to win chips and stay ahead in the tournament, while being crippled by folding on a later street and being left with a small stack can be the effective end of your tournament life.

In cash games, I can say that have had this thought work itself into my play on the turn or river. I often ask myself... am I willing to put my whole stack on this hand? If so, then I might as well shove now (like on the turn) rather than waiting for the river if I don't have the nuts but think I can win the hand regardless.

But as I step back, I wonder how much merit this idea really has in cash game play. Even if fold on the river and only have 25% of my stack left, at least I would still have those chips left for when I refill my buy-in. So my long-term winrate is the focus, not on short term gains. If a major scare card comes on the river, then I need to be willing to fold if I think I have a losing hand... even if I am left with peanuts in my stack.

At the same time, I'm also trying to understand the idea of playing with the effective stack size in mind when playing cash games and wondering whether and how that translates to being "pot-committed" in tourney play.

What are your thoughts? is this too big of a question to ask in a forum?

Wow,this is a really great question! I'm glad you asked!to see what responses you may get!
This is a spot I've encountered a lot in cash games & tournaments!! We're more used to these spots in tournaments, as you wrote, & more comfortable with in a tourney as opposed to a cash games where you strive to grab every value on almost each street but face hard decision points often when you're bet into unexpectedly or facing an all in in a marginal spot. I suffer a lot from overcalling when the odds aren't in my favor because I feel pot comitted, more so in cash games & rightly so as there are no ICM implications & chips are valued in cash games, repeating myself
So I'm looking for wisdom in this area myself, I'd say being "pot-committed" in a cash game is definitely a thing but much less of a factor on the river as plays & hands are more polarized in a tourney & decisions much easier to make as you're usually "pot-committed" after the flop when under 20 BB chasing draws or defending hands. Good question!

Ed Miller's book Professional No-Limit Hold 'em has a long chapter called "Planning Hands Around Commitment".

A lot of advice regarding pot-to-stack ratio.

One of the advises: Don’t put in one-third or more of your starting stack and then fold.

Some exceptions to this maybe, but not many.

I think, "pot committed" is mostly a concept from before, much of the modern software became available to make poker math easier to handle. It basically mean, that you are getting to good odds to fold, if Villain push all in.

The 1/3 of your stack advice is classical, but mostly apply to preflop and flop situations, where equities run close. If you have a busted 9 high draw on the river, you are not "pot committed", even you already put in 90% of your stack.

And even if you have 45% of your stack in the pot, you can still fold, if the river card was really bad for your hand and for instance completed both flush and straight draws, and you just dont think, your opponent is bluffing often enough. "Pot committed" should never become an excuse for making bad calls especially on the river.

There is no real difference between cash games and tournaments. If anything it takes a bit more to be "pot committed" in tournaments because of ICM considerations. Even you only have 60% of your chips back, each of these chips are worth more than the chips, you can win, if you call, so you should lean more towards folding and surviving. In cash games you just reload, so getting stacked is less detrimental.

fundiver199 said:

I think, "pot committed" is mostly a concept from before, much of the modern software became available to make poker math easier to handle. It basically mean, that you are getting to good odds to fold, if Villain push all in.

The 1/3 of your stack advice is classical, but mostly apply to preflop and flop situations, where equities run close. If you have a busted 9 high draw on the river, you are not "pot committed", even you already put in 90% of your stack.

And even if you have 45% of your stack in the pot, you can still fold, if the river card was really bad for your hand and for instance completed both flush and straight draws, and you just dont think, your opponent is bluffing often enough. "Pot committed" should never become an excuse for making bad calls especially on the river.

There is no real difference between cash games and tournaments. If anything it takes a bit more to be "pot committed" in tournaments because of ICM considerations. Even you only have 60% of your chips back, each of these chips are worth more than the chips, you can win, if you call, so you should lean more towards folding and surviving. In cash games you just reload, so getting stacked is less detrimental.

Click to expand...

I never thought of being pot-committed as a reason to call in tournaments or cash game situations. To me (and correct me if I am wrong), the decision making in tournaments is between betting all-in or folding because your standard raise will leave you with such a crippled stack on the next street that will have little or no fold equity on the next street, and folding will leave you with such a crippled stack that it becomes hard to continue in tournament (which is why it's always best to starting going all-in pre-flop when your M creeps below 5-7... but you probably have room for 1 hand to PFR and then shove on the flop if conditions are right when M is above 8 or something) or fold and then go all-in on your next opportunity pre-flop.

My impression is that in the cash game, these considerations is only around whether you have enough of a stack left after the flop bet to make a sizeable enough bet to influence odds on the turn (to protect your hand). If your stack size is not enough to at least make a half-pot bet in the next street, then you either fold or go all-in on the flop and maximize your fold equity if there is a likelihood of you barrelling on the next street (or check-calling). Folding with a scare card on the next street and left with a "crippled stack" does not seem like it's as big of a deal in the cash game since topping up is always an option (not an option with tournament play) and survival is not really part of your thought process... just overall BRM and winrate%.

I suppose that part of the thought process also needs to also incorporate an understanding of the effective stack size as well -- not just about my stack size.

That's what I am seeing... but wondering if this is the "right" way to think of it... or are there other ideas that need to be integrated in the thought process (outside of reading board texture and reading opponent's range... which is part of a much larger conversation)? For me, so much of this is about strategizing for bets in future streets... I really don't think that it's a good idea to put in a bet on the flop without an idea of what you will do on future streets.

Anyway, more dialogue is always appreciated...