Military strategists have long discussed the “Rubicon” example and the mindset it represents, in particular the way committing to such an action necessarily reduces options going forward, including the one to avoid conflict altogether.
For example, when Julius Caesar led a legion southward toward Rome and crossed the Rubicon river, that action signaled an inexorable commitment to war, with the phrase “crossing the Rubicon” later coming to represent just such a commitment. Take the situation of opposing factions building toward conflict who make declarations suggesting a particular action or advancement necessarily removes peaceful alternatives.
It isn’t exactly the same, but being pot committed is sometimes likened to reaching a kind of “point of no return” such as might arise other contexts. Such a situation is determined by pot odds and how those odds compare to your chances of winning a hand. Generally speaking, being pot committed means having arrived at a point in a poker hand at which folding to any bet or raise has become an incorrect play.
But it’s one well worth learning, particularly when playing “big bet” games like no-limit hold’em and pot-limit Omaha in which bets on successive streets can quickly transform a small skirmish into major melee. It’s a concept many think they understand, but sometimes they misapply it or are mistaken. One of the more commonly uttered justifications for suspect decisions in poker is for players to claim they were “pot committed” in a hand when in they really weren’t.
0 kommentar(er)
