Do I go all-in too often? NLHE tourney hand

[Daniel Negreanu]

"I would fold preflop and either check the flop or bet less (probably check the flop)."

That's certainly an option, but with a limper already entering the pot there is a good chance this will be a multi-way pot. I kinda like playing the J-10 of clubs in a multi-way pot, don't you?

"This is why I fold preflop- you are out of position with one pair mediocre kicker without a clue whether you are ahead or behind and have already put almost 1/3rd of your stack in the pot."

You say this is why you'd fold PRE flop? That must be a typo I imagine.

[Copernicus]

I dont think its a typo, though the wording is a bit tough to follow. I think he is saying that he folds this pre-flop because you often wind up in the position of having committed a large % of your stack without having the confidence to bet out even when you hit top pair.

I like JTs multi-way also, but in a tournament two early limpers can just as easily result in a raise that you dont want to invest in as it can a few more limpers that justify playing.

Also, when you do get that multi-way pot you are de-valuing high card hands. In this situation it happens that the high card hand you de-valued was your own, quite unwittingly of course.

LP with a few limpers and a comfortable stack relative to the blinds, I think JTs is playable. Even then, wbith this flop I would be extremely cautious and fold to any aggression.

[J.R.]

"I kinda like playing the J-10 of clubs in a multi-way pot, don't you?"

I do, but I don't like playing it out of position, and my experience is that these pots usually get raised behind me in situations when I limp up front, so I might have to pay more to see the flop here and it might not have many others along for the ride.

No it wasn't a typo. I don't like playing hands where I have a vulnerable one pair (although top pair) with a mediocre kicker out of position, make a sizable bet (over 1/4th of my stack), and get flat called. Given his flop bet, I like his turn play, but assuming he is one of the better players in the tournament, he has plenty of ammunition left so is it worth it for him to take such a risk (commiting almost 1/3rd of his stack so far) with a mediocre hand when out of position.

I think this play has more merit in a live tournament where reads are easier to come by. But online, the play of marginal hands is more difficult because of the absence of physical tells and the constant breaking of tables which makes it difficult to follow an opponents play to get a read on his or her tendancies. As a result, I play tighter online, reasoning that because I have less information at my disposal, I might as well have a better hand on average.

Another idea is that given the general bad play of your tpical opponent in a $20 nl with 400+ runners, your risk/reward ratio does not often justify playing marginal hands since 1) your tightness often goes unnoticed and 2) bad players are more prone to call, so I usually get paid of as well when I hit my big hands and thus don't need to push the smaller edges.

Although its not likely, it be nice to see you around more often. Thanks for the insight.

[Daniel Negreanu]

I think you bring up an excellent point about playing more conservative online. With the absence of tells as you mentioned, it becomes more difficult to define your opponents hand.

However, as for folding the J-10 of clubs after a limper, I stick behind my decision to also limp in. An under the gun limper usually gets respect from the other players, so a pre-flop raise is not out of the question, but I also don't think it's a favorite to happen.

In order to actually WIN a tournament, you are going to need to accumulate chips. I'm afraid that if you simply avoid too many marginal situations you won't put yourself in a position to "get lucky". Through my years of playing on the circuit, I learned one valuable lesson: if you rely on the deck to deliver you premium situations, the deck will dissapoint you more often than not.

This may not apply to online poker as much, but when it comes to the bigger buy in tournaments it's no coincidence that aggressive players like: Layne Flack, Gus Hansen, Alan Goering, Howard Lederer, Phil Ivey, and others have done exceptionally well, while the more conservative players have been left to watch the final tables on TV!

[Vehn]

Aggressive play gets the money, huh? So thats why you... limp in here? Heh.

I don't think its that bad but in my experience these rinky dink stars tournys with enormous fields and small chip counts, of which I've played several (and won one!), there's "pressure" on almost every hand after the break. There's not enough chips to go around and you don't have time to dick around with drawing hands in EP. There's not enough play for these hands. Which is kinda why I don't play these tournaments any more I guess.