I'll relay a situation that came up in a live 1/2 NL game this past weekend. The spot is relatively common.

After four players had limped in, I raised in the CO to $20 with A Q. The BB and all the limpers called, making the pot approximately $120 with six players seeing the flop. The flop was 4 5 7.

Now my general rule is that I don't continuation bet, regardless of position or flop texture, when there are more than 3 players in the hand (including me), and I whiff. In fact, I often slow down and am more cautious about continuation betting when the pot is contested 3-ways instead of heads up.

In this case, the flop checked around. The turn was a blank (I think it was a red 2), and it checked to the player to my immediate right who bet $15 (lol). I called, as did only one other player. The river was another 2, and it got checked around. The turn bettor won the hand with a pair of 5s; the turn caller had pocket 33s.

Thinking about the hand later, I realized that I probably could have won it on either the flop with a solid bet, or on the turn with a second barrel fired against the smaller field.

So that got me to thinking about whether my continuation betting strategy should be more nuanced against multiway fields.

For example, if the flop is hard to connect strongly with because it is uncoordinated and low cards (like 2 4 7, or 3 3 6), would it be worth c-betting, with a plan to fire a 2d or 3d barrel against the narrowed field on the turn or river?

Any general thoughts?

In the hand that you played, I definitely check behind. This is not such a dry flop, and we're getting called by spades, 7x, 6x, maybe some 5x and overpairs. I would c-bet this head's up and maybe 3-way.

Generally agree with your rule not to c-bet super multi-way. The one exception that I have to this rule is if I get a super-dry K-high or Q-high flop (say K83r) I may decide to c-bet because I can convincingly rep AK (which everyone puts me on anyway) and it's hard for V's to have much to continue with other than Kx (which isn't necessarily a hand people limp-call with) or sets.

Harder to c-bet on the paired flops or super low flops. We don't represent much except overpairs on those flops. So agreed with you that if you c-bet those flops that you need to plan to fire 2 or 3 barrels, especially on good run outs. However, the problem is, especially with paired flops, is that V's are disbelievers and if we get too much action we end up firing into trips that are never going to fold. Very game/V-dependent.

If you do plan to c-bet wettish flops like this with two overs, you may have to triple barrel. A hand like 46 might not fold until the third bet.

Some people seem to have this habit of betting flop, and then once they're called, they check turn not thinking they can get folds, but then they come back alive on the river knowing that if they don't bet they're likely to lose to bottom pair. That is just a really bad habit, and you're usually not repping much when you do that.
- C-betting flop, and then always just giving up unless improved is a losing play. Just don't c-bet. You're getting called.
- C-betting flop, giving up on turn, bluffing river is generally a losing play. You lost your FE when you gave up on turn.

If you get yourself into a spot where you're possibly setting yourself up to run a triple barrel bluff, you want to have the easiest escape route early on, while making it progressively harder for villains to call on each later street.

This is why I'm a big fan of betting well under half pot on the flop in multiway action. If you build up too big of a pot early on, it's going to be a really expensive bluff by the river. Also, you can't just keep barreling regardless of turn and river. You'll often want to give up before that. It is a pretty rare occurrence that I'm actually firing that third bullet without a hand, but when I do and am successful, I've won a decent sized pot. If I get caught, I just tighten up and hope my bluff will pay dividends later on in the session when I actually have a hand.

You have to be very cognizant of villain ranges and pot size, and have a good idea of what villains are folding and for which amounts.

So I think c-betting a flop like this can definitely be profitable, but you have to understand it's not going to be immediately profitable. You won't generate enough folds on the flop. And it's never going to be profitable against villains that are convinced you can't possibly have anything but AK because you raised preflop and because they have bottom pair and want to catch you. You have to wait to actually have a hand against that type.

If you don't have the stomach or stack sizes or villain type aren't right to bluff three streets, then just give up immediately and don't put a dime into the pot unless/until your hand improves.

I would never c-bet a wet flop like the one in the hand described because it's too likely to have hit lots of hands that may have limped-call. I'm comfortable that, in the particular hand from the OP, checking in position on the flop was the right play.

I'm guess what I'm really asking is if there are flops where it would be profitable to c-bet into a multiway field.

For example, take a flop like 2 2 6 rainbow. Unless a player has a deuce, a six, or an overpair in his hand, it's hard to continue with the hand in the face of a bet. Moreover, if the turn is any broadway card (but particularly if it's an A, K, or Q), it's becomes harder still for any hand except pocket sixes or one including a deuce to call a second barrel. Hands like 76 or 88 that may have floated a dry flop like 2 2 6 and called by putting me on AK or AQ, now have additional incentive to give up. If that's right, that could come in handy where I've raised on the button with a hand like JTs or 89s and received a few limp-calls.

I guess that's why I was wondering if my "no c-betting rule on multi-way flops" was too conservative. Perhaps a c-bet on a raggy flop could work if I'm prepared to double-barrel: once to thin the field to something manageable, and the second time on a favorable turn card (whatever that might be in context).

Has anyone tried such an alternative strategy? What's been your experience?

This is the problem, you need to be thinking about flop texture and ranges every time you are making a decision about c-betting. Field size is an important variable but flop texture and the opponents ranges are way more important IMO.

The first thing you need to identify is what are players limp calling ranges in your game. For Many players at 1/2 their limp calling range are any suited Q+, small pocket pairs, Suited connectors, or 1 gap suited connectors, as well as 2 non ace unsuited Broadway cards. now the board you gave absolutely smacks those types of ranges. it is likely (assuming the players are loose) that all flush draws and 1 pair hands will call your cbet so on a board like that you should not cbet unless you think you will get folds from bricked out draws and 1 pair hands on later streets (and you are prepared to triple barrel).

Now think about that range on a board like 772 rainbow. Even 4 ways it's hard for someone to have much of anything on a flop like that. Since most bad players don't recognize that and will fold hands that have showdown value like pocket 3's that is a board I might still cbet on if it's multi way.

Sounds like you're being results-oriented. Checking here seems like the natural play unless you're prepared to empty the clip.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Always have a reason to bet.
Cbetting when there is more than 3 players and you have TP for example you are losing value but cbetting when you have Ace high on a 456 is just spewing money.
You have too think about what players ranges will call with and adjust from there, some love the call with any ace, some only Broadway once you figure that out you then you can cbet with ace high knowing they have not much and will fold.
Other times you wont cbet because villain hit the board a lot more than you do and wont fold

Sent from my SM-J320ZN using 2+2 Forums