1/2: Small cbets multi-way are costing me the pot

I have slowly realized since joining this forum that people don’t understand ‘redline strategy’ and when to apply pressure. I will try to exploit this more, moving forward.

In a world that thinks big bets are big hands and little bets are little hands, it’s quite easy to make people go away. Think maybe solvers confuse people in the quest for max value, trying to keep worse hands in. The suggestions make sense in theory. But if you can pot the flop, fold everyone, add $50 to your stack with no variance; why tiptoe around & try to win $100.

They say you can’t bluff at low limits, but I hear, ‘this is a $15 hand, I can’t call that much’

You can’t try to win every pot, but when you do get involved, you have to try to win it and you can’t narrow a range without pressure. I’m just trying to find my way like everyone else, but I’m willing to expose my logic, flawed and all.

Under pressure, villain will come alive and expose his strength, so you can get away from your hand. This is the main information you want to avoid losing a big pot.

I have spent my life helping others. That’s all I know. Some, don’t think I’m very helpful, but I am trying to be. We all learn in different ways. Never criticizing the person, just suggesting alternative strategies.

Meanwhile, I am truly grateful to all of you. For whatever you think of me, we share an obsessive love for the game. You are my people - I’ve been loving this game for 50 years. May you all run good!

A big flop c-bet from OOP and multi-way is not likely to be the most EV+ approach to this situation long term.

Is $45 considered big?

I was responding to the point someone else made about c-betting large here, as the PFR, OOP, multi-way, contrary to theory (not that theory is much of a guide in multi-way pots).

To answer your question directly - $45 into $75 is more than half pot. Whether that's "big" or "small" depends on the situation and what you're hoping to accomplish, the reasoning for it, etc. Here, OOP and multi-way, yes, I'd say that's a big c-bet, but in other contexts, we might say it's not big enough.

Your thread title and OP suggested that the underlying assumption is that we SHOULD c-bet here, and that theory says our c-bet should be small, but you believe that's causing you problems.

I'd argue that theory doesn't really say that, because most theory deals with HU spots where we're IP as the PFR or defending the BB in a two-blind setup, not playing OOP and multi-way as the PFR in a three-blind setup. We can extrapolate what to do here based on what theory says to do there, but it's not like this exact setup has been solved and we can simply refer to a pre-solved chart.

I actually think it's better to just check here, not c-bet, for any size. But if you're going to c-bet, then there's a debate to be had about what size you should take, and why, and how you plan to proceed as the remaining cards come out, based on the action, etc.

Theory says we should bet small when we're betting at a higher frequency, when the board is monotone, and most poker theoreticians say we should bet smaller when it's multi-way. I'm not positive what theory suggests regarding our c-betting frequency OOP vs IP, or multi-way vs HU. When we're OOP and multi-way, solvers become less useful, and we're forced to rely more on logic and experience.

So, we (not you and I, but some of us here) may be arguing about what to do in this situation. I stand by what I've said earlier in this thread:

1. I think we should be doing less c-betting and more checking when we're OOP, and / or multi-way. My reasoning is that people tend to play multi-way pots more face-up, and we gain valuable info by checking rather than betting.

2. If we're c-betting less frequently, an argument could be made that we should c-bet larger, not smaller. I think the problem with large c-bets when we're OOP and multi-way is that we end up funneling our opponents' ranges into buckets of better value and really good draws, whereas checking allows our opponents an opportunity to bet and gives us some additional info, and smaller c-bets will keep our opponents' continuing ranges wider / weaker. A large bet mostly folds out worse hands, hands we'd like to see call.

3. Playing multi-way and OOP is just challenging in general, reducing our EV no matter what we do, so we should be mindful not to over-play weak value or bluff too much.

4. Whatever we do on the flop, we need to have some understanding of how that effects our opponents' ranges, such that it informs our decisions on later streets.

So, my preferred line here would be check or bet small on the flop, followed by a large turn bet. That large turn bet should fold out a lot of draws and weight our opponent's range more towards weak value. If we see the river, I'd mostly check-evaluate on this specific run-out, with the decision about what to do facing a bet dependent upon who bets, how big they bet, my reads, etc.

As an alternative and simpler argument - if we c-bet large on the flop, and our opponents fold out all their draws and worse value, we either win a small pot when we take it down on the flop, or lose a bigger pot on a later street when our opponent shows up with a better hand. We'd like to get value for our hand, even when we're bluffing, by having opponents call flop, and even turn, then fold river, or pay us off when we have the best hand.

If you want to win the pot on the flop, okay, go ahead and c-bet huge. If you want to win a bigger pot on a later street, check or c-bet small. But you need to be able to think through each node on the decision tree beyond that point.

You need to bet at least half pot for value and protection. Everyone says don't cbet with air, so I don't see why you think a 1/2-2/3 pot bet usually takes it down. Also, taking it down might not be a terrible result.

Our goal isn't to just take down pots. We play for money, not for pots. The goal is to win the most money, not the most pots.

This isn't a binary choice between not betting with air and c-betting for X size (always the same size) with something that isn't air. There's a spectrum from total air to stone nuts, and a bet size from 1BB to many multiples of the pot.

Consider a hypothetical strategy wherein we're just c-betting large, whenever we're the PFR, regardless of being IP or OOP, multi-way or HU, and giving up whenever we don't take the pot down on the flop. Yes, we'll win small pots whenever they fold, but we'll lose bigger pots whenever they don't fold and we give up.

Compare that to a more realistic strat wherein we're checking some, c-betting small some, c-betting large some, based on whether we're IP or OOP, multi-way or HU, and how the board interacts with our opponents' ranges as well as our actual hand.

I don't see why we need to bet at all here, when we're OOP and multi-way. If we do c-bet, we could c-bet small and decide what we want to do on the turn, or we could c-bet large, but we'll probably need to check turn or river if we start out with a large c-bet on the flop.

OP stated "in live low-stakes games, I’m starting to think small flop bets in multiway pots cost me money," and asked, "Anyone else adjusting flop sizing up in multiway spots, or do you stick with solver-style small bets regardless?"

The OP points to the small flop c-bet as the reason for the outcome, whereas I pointed to the small turn barrel, and loose river call.

We need to look beyond the simple question of whether to c-bet small or large on the flop. Those aren't the only two choices, and it's not the only decision point which matters. We can also check rather than bet, or bet REALLY large, but whatever we do on the flop, we should be able to reason our way through the decision tree as we progress through the hand.

You cbet 1/2 pot or more for value and protection. If you were really deep or you missed the flop, then checking and seeing what the action is would be a good approach. I don't like a really big bet, as it defines your range too much, and folds out too many hands you are ahead of.

You're OOP to the world with a fairly crappy multiway hand. If your mentality is "this is costing me money" and not "how can I tap-dance out of this minefield without getting pwned?" you're probably thinking about it the wrong way.

If stacks were deeper I would be more on board with the cautious people but we are basically 60, bb deep, we flop tp2k against a bunch of muppets and spr = 4 on a pretty dry board. I think making postflop a 2 street game is fine. Doc suggested check flop, so then maybe you could raise and commit. Or you bet flop whatever and big boy bet the turn.

The upside of the small bet is you give your opponents a chance to reveal the strength of their hand, since everyone learned not to let those draws get there cheap...

At any rate I saw the key point made early on, the small turn bet was the problem, not the small cbet

+1

Sent from my Pixel 7 Pro using Tapatalk

On the flop, you are only behind 33 and 66, unless someone called preflop with KK, AK, K6s, K3s, or 63s. There is a flush draw out there. You need to bet at least half pot for value and protection. Then you can shove blank turns. You mostly want to protect against a flush. You can play a flush draw the same way as a semibluff.

Turn, as played, there are 2 2-flushes, but not much made, so probably shove as a slight overbet.

Checking OOP to see what the action is is a good play in some other situations.

Betting small on both streets lets all sorts of hands draw cheaply.

Check on the flop would have been fine and probably best given you're oop and there's 3 people who can still bet and tell you what they have.

Preflop if anyone is considering folding because we got multiway action, I'm sorry but this is live poker. Deal with it. This is a fine raise for value.

The turn is the most important street here and the clearest error made. They have a capped range because of the flop action and we are going for maximum value. If you can't see why betting large on the flop isn't optimal then you need to study more.

What protection does our hand need?

Yes, there's a two-flush on board, but we have the Qs in our hand, reducing the number of flush combos our opponents can have. There's also a potential straight draw on board if someone gets here with 54s. Are we going to start blasting off every time we have TP2K and are OOP in a multi-way pot, because we're afraid to play poker on later streets?

I'd argue our stack needs more protection than our hand, particularly when the 2.5x straddle goes on, and we're OOP to the field in a low-stakes game, where people have been known to flat call with AK, all their PP's from 22-QQ, SC's, S1G's, suited aces, etc.

Checking and seeing what our opponents do is a good approach to this spot whether we missed or not. If we're betting whenever we have value and checking whenever we don't, it will be pretty easy for our opponents to out-play us just by betting whenever we check and folding whenever we bet.

If we start c-betting 1/2 pot or more when we're OOP and multi-way, it becomes much more likely someone has us beat when we get called, or they're only calling with their highest equity draws. All we're doing by c-betting is funneling them into having a stronger range, and the bigger we bet, the stronger that range becomes.

I'd say preflop can be a fold if we're regularly encountering difficulties OOP as the PFR 4way+. A short-term fix is to trim our range (so I'd be looking at not playing hands like KQo, AJo, QTs, KJs for instance). We can also increase our RFI size to reduce the chances of 4way+, or, even, limp.

If we're not confident as the OOP PFR multiway then the process of learning how to the "deal with it", in game, can be a costly exercise.

On the flop, you are only behind 33 and 66 and some junk hands becoming 2-pair or hands that should have been 3! preflop. There are multiple players who can make a flush or 2-pair on the next card. Someone could make a straight or straight draw on the turn.

You need to assume you have the best hand and try to gii and not let the whole table draw cheaply. With other flops or deeper stacks, there could be more priority to protecting our stack.

I play fairly tight, but play all 4 of those hands in ep and am fine with going up against a bunch of marginal hands. If you are not comfortable in situations like this postflop, then OK to fold them preflop.

With KQ on K63 2-flush SPR of 4, there is a high probability you are way ahead. So you want to bet 1/2 pot or more for value. Then you also take it down or narrow the field. There are people playing KJ/KT/K9. They are not folding to a cbet when a K hits. Loose passives will call preflop with 99-JJ and will call on this flop.

You realize your equity because the loose passives play badly postflop also. Sure, maybe 44 is a better hand in ep if it is likely to go 4 or 5 ways to the flop, because when you hit, you have a hand you can play strongly. unless the board has a 3-flush or something.

If you had KQ on KT9 multiway, then you are way behind several likely hands and there are many draws. So there, you should check and see what the action is. You might fold the flop to some action.

I think what you said here, the part I've put in bold, is fair, and worth unpacking.

If we're dealing with a low SPR on the flop, I'd be more inclined to want to get stacks in. When the SPR is higher, I'd be more hesitant. The SPR on the flop in this hand is kind of in-between, at 3.8. That's just a little too deep to want to GII on the flop.

Part of the reasoning for my suggestion that OP check rather than c-bet the flop was that it's a 1/2 game, but the $5 straddle is on. I think we should consider how often 1/2 players are going to flat call rather than 3B pre with AK when they're only starting out 60BB deep, versus 150BB's.

If we c-bet large on the flop and try to get stacks in on the turn or river, we could run into AK, or 66, or 33, but we could also just end up running into some hands that aren't folding to a single bet, and manage to improve on later streets.

Our opponents could have a lot of draws that aren't folding to a single bet, but which may bet if we check to them, giving us some information, and possibly allowing us to win more / lose less with a check-raise.

I did say in my first post that I could see making a larger c-bet here, if we're not c-betting too frequently, and we're able to hand-read effectively, and we're able to navigate later streets with some bet-bet-check or bet-check-bet lines. If we just go bet-bet-bet here, our opponents would have to be pretty bad to call three streets with worse than KQ.

Since the SPR is sort of in-between, if we're going to c-bet this flop, with this hand, I'd rather come out and pot it than bet 1/2 pot. I'd want to use a size that makes opponents uncomfortable about continuing too wide, and suggests we're planning to just play a two-street game by jamming turn. If we get called, we can check or jam turn, whichever seems higher EV.

If we bet 1/2 pot on the flop, say, $40, and get one caller, the pot will be $155 going to the turn, with $245 back. It sets up awkward bet sizing on the turn. Do we jam 1.6x pot? Any size less than all-in is going to both give our opponents good implied odds and pot-commit us going to the river.

Lastly, c-betting this flop is pretty face-up, if we're never bluffing into multiple opponents. If we have no bluffs, we'd have no bets for value, which would dictate a range check. If we're going to c-bet with KQ, we should probably also come out swinging with some bluffs, which could easily lead to over-bluffing.