$1/$3, 9-handed, $600 effective.

Villain is a MAWG. Plays like a typical bad reg. Probably 30/15 VPIP/PFR.

Hero raises $15 UTG with AKdd
MP calls $15
Villain calls $15 BTN
BB calls $15

Flop ($55, 4ways) is 8c 6d 2s

BB checks
Hero bets $40
MP folds
Villain calls $40
BB folds

Turn ($127, HU) is 8c 6d 2s Jd

Hero bets $110
Villain calls $110

River ($346) is 8c 6d 2s Jd 3h

Hero ???
(We have $440 behind)

What are your thoughts on every street?

Answering question in thread title in a vacuum without reading any further: no. Triple barrell bluffing at 1/3 is totally unneccesary 98 percent of the time.

This smells like spew starting on the flop by C-betting big with A high into 3 opponents being OOP. You seem to be trying to force the action too much, wich have been a classic pattern in your game over a long period of time.

Basically this. Flop is a x/c and it’s not close

I'm not a fan of building bloated pots deep and multiway and OOP, although I guess this hand can mostly handle that. If we're going to go multiway (which we always are) then a smaller raise to give us a lot more room to move might actually be better (and I tend to lean to the smallest raise possible here, which is a limp, but that's me).

No draw, no pair, no card to rep, OOP, 4ways, against at least one "typical bad reg" (which I mostly read as "pays off far more than they should when obviously beat". And we cbet. Pay me $10 now or I'm telling DLuo about this one. I think we're setting money on fire, but that's me. I check/fold.

While the Jd turn is an overcard, it's simply not scary enough for me to rep, so I'd probably just check/evaluate. If betting, I'm probably betting less just to give myself better odds (especially if raised); is he really folding *that* much more for $110 than he is for $65 (which looks milky as hell)?

I probably check/fold the river. There are some draws that he missed, so we do have showdown value. Is he capable of bluffing given the strength we've shown up to now (where it really looks were bluffcatching the river)?

I've said this a zillion times in your thread, so I'm just repeating myself (again), but taking high variance lines on a limited roll in a game where ABC low variance lines will work just fine is dumbfounding.

GcluelessNLnoobG

AP $285 or shove otr, his range is pretty capped and a lot of players raise sets otf or ott.

Flop is a xf to any decent bet.

Flop is rainbow.

Turn call looks pretty strong.

Don't cbet this flop utg against three opponents, especially not this huge, but check/evaluate instead. I don't think it's very close either, but if you do want to bet, then bet much smaller on this superdry flop. This just seems like brute force for the sake of brute force.

Now, as played, I dunno. I mean, he should basically fold anything except a set or the old 45 if you fire the third barrel, but he has probably seen you play before, so I'm guessing he may very well think you overbluff and therefore won't fold a pair either. And all sets are still in his range, since he doesn't really have any incentive on this flop or turn to raise them, against someone who seems perfectly willing to barrel off his stack all by himself.

Maybe vs a > 75% pot bet but vs a 1/3-2/3 psb I think it should be a call, IP players are going to stab with draws a lot and occasionally airballs/weak pairs that will be checking turn high freq.

Standard play is to check flop and give up river. We need a good reason to bluff river here and I don't think we have one, particularly if you have an agro image.

I'm also in the check flop camp

sizing is huuuuuuge throughout and...mostly I would just not ever triple barrell bluff at 1/3

Results:

Sure, you can apply resultoriented thinking if you want. You arent playing against 98 suited though: you are playing against a range of hands.

This spazzy hand all started with your obvious leak of C-betting too much multiway, everything that happens after that mistake is follow up mistakes and should never have happend.

AP I'd probably go for it here for $280 or so, it'll work more than 40% of the time. The cbet is a leak as others have said.