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

[Tyler Durden]

I used to fold in this spot quite often but have recently found that playing ultratight and waiting for big hands (my usual strategy) can be less than optimal and often causes me to play shortstacked the whole way. I think it's important to mix it up a little. I don't call playing JTs in EP 'mixing it up' but it seems like I should play more hands than I do.

[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.

[Stagemusic]

I really can't say that I disagree with anything that you did here. Your play might have been a little loose but I have recently been thinking about whether or not we put too much value on ultra-tight play. Besides, sometimes it's good for the soul to do something just because it feels right. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Scooterdoo]

"Yes he did. He made an assertive bet on the flop, and the button didn't raise him. Making it slightly less likely that he has a better Jack or a set and more likely that he has a draw."

I agree he's probably on a draw. A smaller bet, say 1/2 the pot would have given him a better read -- so-so hands would still fold and he could elicit a raise from really strong hands.

"I would have checked to him on the turn to see what he would do."

Looking at it again (I read these pretty fast the first time through) I wouldn't check the turn and agree it's a bad play. However, I would not go all-in here given the fact that I wouldn't have a really clear read on him (20-30% beats me there, 70-80% on draw would be my guess), but the point is that with his stack size there is a decent chance he's on a draw. You could argue that you would like to be against someone that's on a draw in this situation, but I wouldn't. He could have both a flush and straight draw too. I would have no hesitation going all-in against a similar or smaller stack. At this point in the tournament it's not a gamble I would want to take.

"Even if he checked and a rag came up on the river I would only make a modest bet since he could easily have you beat with the same pair and a better kicker -- why else is he still there?"

If he didn't make his draw or had a smaller pair he is almost definitely folding from an all-in bet so why make it? If we now make a more modest bet, it's more likely he'll stay. Of course the risk here is that he gets raised and will now have a tough decision. If he was planning on going all-in anyway, better to make a modest bet and plan on calling or reraising any raise.

[tewall]

"I would have no hesitation going all-in against a similar or smaller stack. At this point in the tournament it's not a gamble I would want to take."

If you would have no hesitation against going all-in against a similar stack, why would you hesitate against a larger stack? You can't lose more than all your chips.

[Scooterdoo]

When I go all-in I'm usually happy to take the pot right there and am often hopeful that I won't get a call -- especially with a less than the nuts hand like the one discussed here (this one is far from the nuts). Another reason, probably the primary reason here, to bet all-in is to get drawing hands to fold.

So an opponent who is facing a call of an all-in bet that forces him all-in will only make the call if he thinks he has a high probability of winning. In fact, a better player (and sometimes a weaker player) will often not make the call if they are close to being in the money even if their expected win rate is in the 50-60% range or sometimes even higher -- e.g., they don't want to risk getting booted out of the tournament unless they are really comfortable with the call. In this circumstance the opponent can make the call and still be in a good chip position going forward if he loses so there will be much less hesitation to call the bet even if he's not convinced that he has the best hand or if he's on a draw with ony so-so EV.

Stack size of opponents is key in your betting strategy. Another thing to think about is when your opponent is short-stacked. They will often be more willing to call you all-in since this might be their last shot at doubling up and staying in the tournament. Of course if the short-stack has much less chips than you your risk is less if they call you.

Does this make sense?

[tewall]

Yes, I understand what you're saying, and it makes sense.

You're saying that you would change your all-in strategy based on the stack size of the opponent because he is likely to be reacting differently.

In this particular case the poster is so short-stacked, and he's got a decent hand, and he thinks he's got the best hand, I see no reason not to go all-in. If he messed up his read, so be it.

You wrote you wouldn't hesitate to go all-in against a similar or smaller stacked hand. A similar or smaller stacked hand would be pot committed and have to call with hands that the big stack would let go, don't you think? So he'd be more likely to get called, not less, against the smaller stacks. (Well I suppose it's player dependent, as timid players might not want to risk getting knoced out)

If you wouldn't hesitate against a similar sized stack, then you shouldn't hesitate here either, IMO, especially if you think you're ahead.