Q&A #82: Overpairs and the Committment Threshold

Thanks for the thorough response, Ed.

There is a lot of juicy stuff in the new book and it is taking a little bit of time for me to digest it all.

I think one misunderstanding of mine is that I think that once 1/10 of my stack has gone in THEN I need to come up with a commitment plan after that point. However, perhaps I am trying to think about this concept too restrictively. Perhaps I need to think of that 1/10 size mark(pot is 4x the small stack) as more of warning to put in some good thought before I move forward.

I can put 1/10 on my stack into the pot but I need to have an idea how I am going to react from that point on. You alluded to this with your don’t make the 10BB bet without THINKING about commitment. The next bet is going to be a big one so I have to know that it could be coming and I have to have some idea what to do with it. It seems like the commitment threshold is more of an area than an EXACT point. Would this be a fair statement?

This also goes back to being that person putting in that critical bet that puts in 1/3 of the effective stacks can put a lot of pressure on your opponent.

I apologize if this sounds a little bit muddy as these are some very interesting concepts that I am digesting as we speak.

Ed,

Instead of checking the flop (gaining no information and letting your opponent go for a free ride), and instead of betting 10BB on the flop (and being mentally prepared to fold to a check raise right there and then because you will not commit to going all-in)

Why not bet like 6BB on the flop? The 6BB shows strength, keeps the initiative in your court, and at the same time if you get check-raised big then you can still dump as you had mentally prepared for. But at the same time saving the 4BB?

I don’t like checking here, and I don’t like betting 10BB inflating the pot…

I think I would bet 6BB here on the flop. Any comments?

Why are you worried about being check-raised when you have an overpair on a Q-x-x flop? Hands like AQ and KQ and AK on a flush draw are capable of check-raising also.

I would say that a player who can be check-raise bluffed off a small pot is far more exploitable than a player who is prepared to inflate the pot on the flop with AA on a safe flop.

My main goal when I pick up a big pair is to get pot commited as soon as possible. This prevents your opponent from putting you to a difficult decision on the turn/river.

I would suggest reraising all-in on the flop or folding only on a very dangerous board.

checking behind on the flop is the worst way to play AA that I can think of.

shaymalus,

Ed explained pretty well the benefits of checking behind on the flop. We are mostly getting a c/r or a fold on this flop if we bet. We won’t really know where we are when we get c/r since it is mostly a set but it could be some draw with AKs. AQ isn’t much of this guy’s range as he is SO tight.

What do you expect a tight player to call your 3-bet AI with other than a set?

So, since we don’t like getting no worse hands to call us and we will not like life if we get c/r’d then betting isn’t that great here.

shaymalus,

…snip…
My main goal when I pick up a big pair is to get pot commited as soon as possible. This prevents your opponent from putting you to a difficult decision on the turn/river.
…snip…

When you raise preflop with AA pretty much the only tight people calling preflop are AK, AQ, KQ, and pocket pairs.

Play your AA that recklessly on the flop and your going to be consistently getting stacked by sets.

Also, Playing that recklessly with QQ and KK (overpairs on the flop) is setting you up to get stomped by better overpairs and sets.

Hi all,

I see the point of checking behind on the flop to avoid a tough commitment decision.

But how do you balance that with the need to punish draws? The flop is Qxx, two-toned. If a suited Ace, especially AKs, is within the villains range, my instinct would be to bet and price out a flush draw. (However, we do have AA, so a suited Ace has to be discounted since there are only two As left.)

If we check behind and the third flush card hits, then what do we do?

Tony,

Any draws are a small part of his range. Since his rang is JJ+/AK there is only 1 combo that includes a 4-flush at this point. We want to target the biggest part of his range with out actions so we don’t have to be overly concerned with charging draws.

…snip
But how do you balance that with the need to punish draws?
….snip

Therein lies the essence of the game. This example works well because both the hero and the villian have the same size stack to start the hand at 100BB. You have position on the villian, and you have the ability to make the decision difficult on him, because BOTH players are approaching the threshold. I would most often bet here (when in doubt, bet more) or raising if the villian opens. The ONLY reasonable holding you are behind is QQ. That may put me past the commitment threshold, and once beyond the only true mistake the would be folding.

The 6 BB probe bet is OK, especially against the tighter opponent, it postpones the trip to the commitment point by one bet perhaps, and it might have the same effect as checking behind, and inducing some actions from the higher made hands like JJ. But I think most often, I would start to build this pot, betting it, or raising the villian if the opens. I want to him to face that tough decision first. He is in the same SPR with me.

For additional fun I think if you make the flop Txx two-toned then I think it becomes more of a check.

I would just like to make some general observations.

#1 - AA here on the flop is an over”pair”. You still only have a pair. This over-pair, like any pair is still only a “good” hand. The fact that it is an over-pair makes it just a little bit better than a “good” hand. But you only have one pair, and that is still not a “great” hand. And as such we want to avoid large pots.

#2 - People get way too emotional and attached to AA, KK and QQ, especially when they flop over-pairs, these hands ladies and gentlemen are still just a “pair”.

#3 - Continuing on what shaymalus said, I would like to say the following, I know there is the conventional tight-passive and tight-aggressive player labeling, but I would like to introduce a new name… tight-reckless. Tight-reckless players are tight, but over-bet and over-commit to pots too easily with over-pairs and big hands. I play online and at the casino, picking out tight-reckless players is easy. And usually I wait to get a great hand to punish their recklessness with a nice set (suffer AK flopping top pair). On this hand betting more than the pot is OK, but betting too much more than the pot starts quickly becoming reckless setting yourself up for big falls (if not immediate… soon…)(referring to what my homey Donk said above)(Donk - if he bets into you i agree you should raise, within reason of course)

#4 - Truth be told, if I was playing this hand online I would probably be playing like 2-3 other tables also, and as such I would click the old “pot” button to bet the pot, and bet it. And if I got check-raised as mentioned above I would fold, especially to a tight player who c-raised so much… when I have called these check-raises against tight players online, the results were horrendous to say the least.

Now that I analyze this problem more carefully I would check it as Ed “The Man” said, or I would do the probe bet… with only a “good” hand, which AA is. If you bet the pot, or more than the pot, the tight player might think you are trying to buy-it and might c-raise you only with a pair of queens… By calling his raise to 30BB here you are basically saying I’m ready to go all-in with one pair. If that is how you play, let me know which table you are sitting at so I can take all your money with my sets.

What happens if the villain calls your pot sized bet? What then? No one has mentioned this? Then again you are in the same situation… and have gained NO information. If you bet the turn he has the opportunity to c-raise you again! OR what if he just calls your flop bet and bets the pot into you on the turn! At that point he has given you many signs of his strength (call preflop raise, call flop bet, then bets into you) and you will be forced to fold!

Listen to Ed, check-it.

Interesting discussion. I haven’t yet read the book (it is on order) but I am looking forward to getting my head around SPR.

Changing the scenario slightly, what happens if we 3bet pre-flop and get one caller. Does this take us to the commitment threshold on the flop, so that any flop bet is basically committing us to the hand?

For example: someone opens utg to 4BB, I 3bet with KK to 12BB, they call. We both have 100BB. Pot on the flop will be approximately 25BB and we have 88BB left. Does this mean that any bet I make is now committing me to the hand?

This would seem to put me in a difficult situation when faced with someone set mining, as I am not going to be able to get away from any flop c/r or check/call & turn lead out.

Hi Threads,

…snip…
Now, say the flop comes Qxx two-toned. I am giving this tight blind a range of primarly KK-TT and AK. Also, I think that KK and QQ are mostly discounted. There are ~10BB in the pot so if I make a pot-sized bet then I am at the commitment threshold(the pot is 20BB and the smallest stack is 85, this is 4.25x the pot).
…snip…

I’m having a bit of trouble with this example because we seem to have narrowed the villains range to AK, JJ, TT. If we are that confident in his range, we should welcome his check raise and be looking to get is all in while we are ahead of what is at best a flush draw with a back door straight draw and maybe, just maybe we’re worried about QQ. That just doesn’t seem that plausible.

Giving the villain credit for KQs and AQs and pocket pairs, I think I like the check a lot. We’re unlikely to go broke against a set and we are likely to get action from AQ and KQ as out hand is disguised. We’re able to use our position to play a medium sized pot in a case where playing a large pot means we’re almost surely behind. It doesn’t sound like this villain is going to put 100BB in the pot with TPSK.

I also like that checking returns relative position to you so that you can make the most highly leveraged bet if you choose to raise the turn. I think that is a nice outcome.

Todd,

My thoughts were that when we get c/r we are mostly up against a set. We should expect to see a set much more often because there are more combos of that and I think he is more likely to play a set this way. So, the c/r puts us in a funny spot.

Ed,

You’re right. The range was just a guess, but I just wanted to get across the point that this guy is very tight. I agree that he very well is likely to play more PP’s if not all of them. However, in this case doesn’t he play a non-set, non-over PP pretty much the same whether it is 55 or TT?

Hi Threads,

I see what you’re saying. Against a “we’re beat if we’re check raised” villain I like the check line a lot. I particularly like the property of the line that gives us the most leveraged big bet if we induce a bet from the villain if we choose to use it. That’s really powerful I think.

I’m with you where I still have a very tough time around the 100BB mark. With AA or KK I am still generally willing to put 90-100BB in the pot, particularly if I was a late position raiser and got a non-limped call. I found I was putting in the last large bet that was entirely unleveraged. You get a lot of folds and some dicey calls, but often when you are called you’re crushed. Checking and flipping that around lets us run a little wider variety of lines to get the villains money in with a weaker hand, things like letting him put 30% of his stack in and shoving the river on what might look like a busted flush or straight draw. Ease him into being committed and then put him to a tough decision.

…snip…
When your opponents have exploitable tendencies, then you should exploit them and use the Commitment Threshold as just one aspect of your decision-making. The main idea of it is to keep you from yourself getting exploited by people willing to bluff you off good hands in big pots because you’ve shown that you do it.
…snip…

Ed, clearly a large part of a good player’s success is made up of exactly this: exploiting opponents and avoiding exploitation themselves. However, if you’re swithcing gears often (and in response to reads on your opponents and not just your own hands), then can’t you use your image to cross up opponents? Like if you lay down a good hand to a c/r when you have a very good read that you’re beat but are above the commitment threshold ONE TIME, can’t you use that image to pick off bluffs down the line vs. opponents you deem capable of them?

I’m knocking on wood as I’m typing but I play in a pretty tight 1/2 nl game in Atlantic City a few times a week and I can’t remember ever having a really hard time laying down an overpair to a checkraise from an ultra tight player. Hey sometimes you’re just beat and other times the guy’s done his work and built that table image and bluffed you. Either way i don’t think you take that big a hit to your stack or your table image betting out a 6BB bet and subsequently laying the hand down if your check raised. But I can definitively say that checking behind in this spot in that game would have a huge negative expectation. Just my thoughts.

I play in Califorina’s Central Valley, from Lemoore to Coarsegold. 1-2($100max buyin), 1-3($500max buyin), 2-4($200max buyin), 3-5($300max buyin) NL. There are nights when the games are dominated by “tight” players, but they are few and far between. Most nights a raise of 3BB will draw between 4 and 7 callers. Oddly enough a raise to 5BB often wins the blinds. It’s just wierd. So the problem is, raising to something like 6BB normally wins the blinds and get’s you a table image of a wild cannon. Frankly, I despise getting big pocket pairs anywhere other than the back because you simply don’t win anything with them up front. Either you win the blinds or it’s 5 or 6 way action on the flop!