The interesting thing is that the "Sunk Cost Fallacy" has a counterpart in "Pot committed"
We consider a player to be pot committed when that has put such a large portion of his stack in that a fold is not at all likely from that point on.
It is discussed in this article from an investment blog:
https://www.zeninvestor.org/the-sunk-cost-fallacy-what-it-is-and-how-to-avoid-it/
In this very old article on "How to play deep stacked" from the old "Big Stack Strategy" Section there is a discussion on how to avoid being pot committed, yet putting your opponent in exactly that situation.
Here is the definition from the Glossary here on this site:
Pot committed
A player is pot committed or committed if he has already invested so many chips in the pot that he can no longer fold if he is raised all-in.
Contrary to the common misconception, this is not based on the fact that a player has already invested a large part of his stack but rather that he has very good odds for a call.
For example, if a player has invested half of his stack in the pot and another player puts him all-in, then he will get pot odds of at least 3:1, meaning he must only win 25% of the time to break even. If there is other dead money in the pot, then his odds are even better.
If the player believes himself to be so far behind that he no longer has correct odds for a call, it is still correct to fold even if he has already invested a lot. It is wrong to call a raise just because you have already invested a lot of money in the pot, since money put into the pot no longer belongs to anybody.
This article clearly makes the distinction between being "pot committed" and the "sunk cost fallacy"
This comes up quite often in Stud when two players have both committed large amounts to the pot, but on 7th street, you can fold easily if you know you are beaten.
All the best,
VS
