Against Pot Control

by Andrew Brokos
Previously published on CardPlayer.com

“Pot control” is an increasingly popular concept in the contemporary no-limit hold ‘em scene. The idea is that you want to tailor the size of the pot to the strength of your hand, betting and raising when you have a monster and checking and calling when you have a medium-strength hand.

Pot control is important, but it must be balanced against competing considerations. Making the most profitable decision should be your highest goal, yet I often medium-strength hands played in a way that guarantees they get to showdown rather than in a way that will make the most money.

This article explores a common turn decision to illustrate how keeping the pot small and trying to get to showdown can interfere with maximally profitable play.

Suppose that in a 6-handed no-limit hold ‘em game with $1/$2 blinds, you open raise one off the button to $7 with a pair of queens. Only the small blind calls. You both have $200 behind.

The flop comes 6s 8s Jd. Your opponent checks, you bet $12, and he calls.

You grimace as the turn brings the 7d. If your opponent holds 9-7, 8-7, 7-6, or 5-4, then he just improved to beat your queens. You also worry that he may have J-8, 8-6, or even a flopped set. In short, your overpair no longer feels like a monster. The small blind checks. What now?

Many players will check back for pot control. In other words, they will keep the pot small for fear of the scary board. They worry that if they bet, their opponent may check-raise or make a big bet on the river that they cannot call. Thus, they check, intending to call a bet on most rivers.

In one sense, it is reasonable to fear a check-raise. Your opponent could easily have a strong hand. Your queens are not good enough to call, so a check-raise will cost you the pot.

In another sense, though, there is no reason to fear a check-raise. If it happens, you are almost certainly beat with little chance of improving. From your opponent’s perspective, you have shown consistent strength, betting or raising at every opportunity. As far as he knows, you might well have two pair, trips, or a straight yourself. His check-raise will not be a bluff, which means you probably weren’t going to win anyway. All you lose is your bet, which you would have lost anyway since you were probably going to call a river bet.

A check-raise bluff or a check-raise that forces you to fold a good draw is something to fear. Then, the raise costs you not only your bet but also your equity in the pot when you fold a hand that may well have won at showdown. When you are a huge dog to the hands your opponent will check-raise, you do not lose very much by folding.

Having downplayed the disadvantages of betting, let’s consider the advantages. Many worse hands that will call. Some, such as paired jacks, probably call a river bet anyway. But others, such as 9-8, 9-7, 9-6, 7-5, 6-5, and flush draws, may call the turn in hopes of improving but would not bluff or pay off a river bet unimproved if you check the turn. Even if your opponent folds, you still protect against draws and bluffs on scary river cards. If you checked the turn, would you be happy about facing a pot-sized bet on a 9s river?

There are times when pot control makes sense. If betting will frequently open you up to a bluff that you cannot call or force you off of a good draw, then you ought to check and try to see the river or showdown cheaply. Likewise if you think a check will often induce a river bluff or a looser call than your opponent would have made on the turn.

Pot control is only one means making profitable decisions. There is no law that says you must check your one-pair hands on the turn or showdown every overpair. Instead, you must weigh the costs and benefits of betting: will a bet cause your opponent to make mistakes or will it expose you to the risk of making a mistake?