Here's a hand I saw it played at 2/3 9-handed. All hands involved had a bit above100BB, except SB who had 30BB.

UTG straddled to 2BB. UTG1 folds. UTG2 raised w KcK to about 7BB. Folded to Button who called. Two blind and the limper called. Flop: Qh6c3c. Pot size was about 33BB. Checked to UTG2 who cbeted 30BB. Button folds. SB called and allin. BB and UTG folded.

My questions are:

1. Is the UTG2 flop cbet size too big?

2. If SB had 100BB, how much should UTG2 to cbet flop?

3. If UTG2 had KhKd, should his flop cbet size differ here?

4. Will the flop Qc6c3h change UTG2's flop cbet size?

1. Cbet size is large. Completely prices out drawing hands that we want to call, top pair obviously isn't folding but a cold call after preflop action narrows range to top pair at worst and against sets were just value owning ourselves. Smaller cbet 1/2-3/4 pot would accomplish the same goal without getting us pot committed with a good but not nutted hand. We want to bet strong here multi-way but we are OK if we get a flush draw to call on a bad price. No reads given so hard to put opps on a range. If any players other than SB are piling money in with draws, then we can size up.

2. See 1. Multi way so SB stack is irrelevant. In real scenario SB is pot committed after preflop action so if they have a piece of the board they are getting their whole stack involved. For right now UTG2 is sandwiched between 2 100 BB players and BB has the opportunity to get a Re-raise shove no matter what bet sizing to get UTG2 off the hand.

3. It blocks the second nut flush draw but without the Ac you don't block many bluffs. Kc blocks 1 KQs, 1 KJs, 1KTs, 4 AK(which may call open or 3 bet over the top so I would discount two of those combos. I dont think there is enough combos of KcX unless we have a read on a wild player to warrant changing bet sizing on this board.

4. Doesnt change to continuing range of opponent's hand strength. Cancels out Q high flush draws which there are 8-12 of. Queens and sets are still calling. Nut flush draw may raise or call. Pot sized just feels large for what we're trying to accomplish.

Interesting.

1. The SPR is 3. And we have an overpair. And someone could easily think Qx is the nuts. And the board has a draw. But it does suck that we're so multiway and most everyone (other than the shortstack) got fairly decent IO of ~18+:1 to bink (which is why I actually avoid these spots preflop by limping in, but not to sidetrack the question). In large SPR pots, his cbet is definitely too large (and there is even an argument to check). But at this SPR, and depending on how clueless the table is, you could argue a PSB to commit the rest on a safe turn is defensible. IMO.

2. SB having 30bb vs 100bb doesn't change anything given that a couple other opponents already have 100bb. ETA: I mean, there may be cases where we have to size carefully so that a shove by a shortstack will re-open the action, but I don't think that is applicable here.

3 and 4. Again, at this small SPR, the suits don't matter much. There is an argument to made that we're simply committed (for better or worse given preflop). Suits on what we hold / what is on board would perhaps make more of a difference at much larger SPRs (where we are most definitely not committed).

GimoG

The stuff about distribution of suits and stack sizes is mostly a sideshow. The dominant factor here is the pot being 5-way. That points to small sizing (or checking) although as there are likely to be very few 2 pair hands and plenty of draws this doesn't have to be taken to extremes in this case and you can probably go around 40% pot or so. If it was 3-way you could size right up but that's probably inadvisable with it being this multiway. The other questions are considerations but nothing to worry about too much 5 way