by droqqa » Tue Apr 12, 2005 11:18 pm
Norton -
I see what you are saying. The two scenarios here are:
1) Its the turn. You are facing a bet for your stack. You know you are behind. However, you know have outs to improve. Because the pot is laying you odds to call (say 10:1) which are better than your odds to improve (say 3:1), you should call. You are pot committed.
2) Its the river. You are facing a bet for your stack. You suspect that you may be behind. However, because the odds of you being ahead (say 5:1) are less than the odds that the pot is laying you (say 8:1), you should call. You are pot committed.
More often than not, I associate the concept of pot committed with #1 rather than #2 for this reason. In example one - both of the odds are fixed. Say you have a flush draw, and your opponent has a straight - you have 9 outs. Your odds are always going to be 4:1 (roughly). The pot is laying you some amount which will not change.
In example two - the pot odds are fixed again. However, the odds of you being ahead are not! They are dependent on your ability to narrow down you opponent's hand! The better player you are, the more likely you will be able to put your opponent on a specific hand, rather than a range of hands. If you can do this - you will never be pot committed - you will only be making calls in which you are ahead!
I guess this is why I only think of pot committed as example one, and not two. In two, I think that I should be able to narrow down my opponents holding enough so that I can make a yes or no decision as to whether or not I am ahead. This is probably impossible to do - but I know that every time I make an incorrect call on the river I think - "I should have known better!" Not, "I was pot committed"
D