Exploit nits by overfolding.

Fold sounds good. Absent any other information this is a toss up. Some nits will c-bet AK in this situation with a board that likely missed you both, some always have an over pair. The problem for you is the short effective stacks mean that if you call the flop you are more or less committed to the pot. The pot will be $425 and effective remaining stack only $300. It is going to be hard to fold top pair unless turn is an ace.

This is a snap fold preflop, especially against the described Villain. I can’t believe you are talking about “exploiting” by folding top pair but not by folding preflop.

Vs OMC you can 100% fold this preflop. Against a competent reg I think it's also a mix of 4betor fold most likely with limited call. To beat OMC you want to see flops cheaply with low pocket pairs and low suited connectors and then punish them for playing too sticky with their over pairs when they are basically playing KK/AA face up. I fold this pre and definitely fold this post flop.

Actually it's such a small preflop size I think you call against a reg, fold against a nit OMC

this is sometimes a fold preflop, never a 4bet, and always a fold vs this villain type.

QFT!

So he limp calls jacks but you’re taking KT to war here?

i mean if u call pre u cant fold the flop

No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back. - Turkish Proverb

This is a cash game; there’s no such thing as “pot committed”. The real question is whether or not we will have proper pot odds to call a bet. If the SPR is low enough, then that answer will be yes, assuming a relatively normal situation.

In this case, assume villain shoves the turn. We will be risking 300 to win 725. This requires 29.3% equity to break even. Are we really sure we have this much equity with TP2K vs a nit like OP describes? Is the nit three betting PF, betting the flop and shoving the turn with a range that gives us this much equity? Villain almost certainly has something better than our hand in this case. Best case is that we have 5 clean outs and about 10% turn equity. I can easily see a fold ott.

You said there’s no such thing as pot committed in a cash game, then defined pot committed and said the real question is if we are pot committed.

You convinced yourself Villain has Hero crushed while doing no real analysis. Bravo!

P.S. One needs to take the OP's reads with a grain of salt. He thinks Villain is a "very tight OMC" because he appears older than 60 and he limp-called JJ from UTG, which I'm sure is the preferred play for many passive randos. So I wouldn't assume that Villain is a "nit."

Can you show the rest of the us where you found out that pot committed doesn’t apply to cash games?

The fact you don't think cash players should equate "having proper pot odds" to being "pot committed" is really more of a "you" problem.

I also don't know why you felt it necessary in the last paragraph to overly explain such a basic concept as "pot odds."

Calm down 😀 there may be some other people such as myself would enjoy reading that paragraph.

Maybe I’m not being clear. Pot committed and getting proper pot odds are not the same thing. Pot committed means that we have to call even though we DON’T have proper pot odds to make a profitable call. There is absolutely no reason in a cash game to make a call when we don’t have proper pot odds (this can of course be implied odds as well if further action is possible). Only in a tournament can it be profitable to make a call when you don’t have proper odds to do so. That is because you cannot reload your stack; you must continue to play with a short stack and hence you will be much better off to take the risk NOW and potentially keep a playable stack, even when the chip odds don’t justify that risk. In a cash game this does not apply. You do not have to play with a short stack. You can reload or rack up and keep the money you have left.

You’re being very clear. Never in 21 years of poker have I heard someone define the term pot committed the way you have, but hey, maybe you’re right and everyone else I’ve ever heard use the term is wrong.

I just turbofold preflop to the 3bet. An OMC, what is he 3betting here and how do we shape up against that range? I'd rather flat 76ss than our hand and I'd fold both.

I fold flop now. If we think he 3bets AK and auto blasts off, we can call down but this looks more like AA/QQ from an OMC.

nit: vs an UTG limp I'm fine overlimping this because you're rarely taking it down pre when you raise and people will do things like limp/call KJo or ATo pre and we're just owning ourselves by raising. Once we get 3bet, folding pre is fine. If you can't call the flop, you can't call preflop.

while this sounds really clever, the reality is folding the flop at equilibrium is a ~30bb error. if you think he's really tight pre where this becomes an issue, i'd fold pre where the cost of being "wrong" is like 1 bb. theproblem is when you start hero folding equity in low spr, bloated pot situations (with absolutely minimal evidence) you set yourself up to make really large ev blunders

adjusting is ok but it's not a binary thing. the tendency on here seems to be that people want to make large whole scale deviations to strategy based on like 8 word villain descriptions from generally unreliable narrators who have played 30 hands with their opponent. i think if you want to be a bit tighter otf that's fine but this is a really really large +ev spot with our hand (bc of the size of the pot), so you need to be very very certain about what you're doing

OK I spent time reading your clarifications and examples, I think the key difference we understand 'pot committed' differently is that whether the term is about correct pot odds. By my (and perhaps most people's) understanding the term is to say there's no return point and we have to call further actions.

My example would be if we turn AQo into a 4-bet bluff preflop, and facing a 5-bet jam, even if our opponent shows AA faced up, we have correct odds to call. That's when we are committed.

Guys, stop the passive aggressive disagreeing (not L.C.C above, but some of the regs). It's OK to just disagree without being snarky about it. For example, I also disagree with stremba70, but I will be more direct.

Stremba, I think you're using an edge case of the concept of pot commitment as though it is the general. For example, Harrington on Cash Games Volume 1 (Two plus Two publishing, 2008) uses the term 14 times, so it's pretty clearly not just a tournament concept. On page 77 he says "pot commitment is a key idea in no-limit hold 'em. If the pot has grown very large, an all-in bet from your opponent may offer you very attractive odds to call, given the strength of your hand. When this situation occurs, you are said to be pot-committed." This is, of course, closely related to pot odds, but it has a lot to do with pot control. i.e., if you don't want the pot odds to demand a call of even an all-in bet (pot commitment), you need to keep the pot small enough on earlier streets that this doesn't happen.

Harrington goes on to say that pot commitment is common in tournament play, due to the size of blinds and antes compared to remaining stacks, but also occurs in cash play. He continues "Handling pot commitment decisions well in the course of cash game play requires keeping two questions in your mind as you play each hand. 1. How much of my stack do I want to get involved given the hand I have and the hand I think my opponent has? [Kind of before range thinking, here] 2. If my opponent pushes all-in (either now or in response to a bet I'm contemplating) will I be compelled to call, or can I lay my hand down?" All of this, and many example hands are in the section Courting or Avoiding Pot Commitment.

huh? Your decision pre is sunk. You ****ed up pre[ why would you compound that with ****ing up post?