Originally Posted by archimedes11
hahaha ok sure, I agree with that of course. But how about if you've got like 30bb left in a tournament, and you 3bet jam TT over someone's UTG open who's got like 70bb. You could conceivably make this play to get villain to fold QQ, JJ, AQ, AJ. But you could also arguably do this for value if you think he could call with 99-77 and ATs. I understand that what I'm suggesting is weird, cause why would villain call with < TT but fold > TT right. It's a pretty bad example, but the principle is what I'm after. What are your thoughts?
this is just a maths play, defining it is pretty irrelevant.
in ur OP example betting KK on the turn, with the read that he is never folding an A as u suggested, is clearly for value. dont see how thats not obvious. if ur doing it as a bluff with the read he never folds an A ur clearly a retard.
but again, defining bets as one or the other doesnt mean jack****. u make the most +ev action, end of story.