Live 1/2 game. I've been playing for approximately 3-4 hours and have a somewhat tight image and have shown down nothing but good hands. The villain in this hand has played every hand since I've been at the table that wasn't raised to more than $12 preflop. I have $500 in middle position with JJ. Villain is UTG and has me covered. Villain and one more limp in and I raise to $8. One caller, Villain calls, limper calls.

Pot - $35 Flop: Jd As 10d

Villain bets out $8, limper calls, I raise to $25, Villain grimaces and calls, limper folds.

Pot - $93 Turn: 2s

Villain checks, I bet $50. Villain thinks for about 15 seconds and calls.

Pot - $193 River: 6c

Villain checks. What do you do in this spot and why?
I give the villain a range of {1010+ J10, A10-AJ, KQ, various diamond draws and weak kings/queens} after calling on the flop. After calling on the turn I eliminate the weaker kings and queens and KQ as I feel that hand would have raised on the turn. What do I do on the river? I thought the best move would be to value bet here as either the Villain has missed his draw or he has a weaker set or two pair that he will call with. However, as the hand turned out, I'm now rethinking that. Thanks in advance for responses!

I would bet more on basically every street. I think I check river if Villian is that splashy, every draw missed, let him try and own himself. I also question how often we get a call from a garbage ace for three streets.

After viewing spoiler: thank him for doing everything wrong and move on. Also, stay in this game forever.

I'm not thinking a garbage ace, but perhaps a AQ or Axd. I definitely agree, and was even thinking as I was writing out the post, that I bet too little. It's difficult sometimes to stay in line with proper bet sizing when the culture of the table dictates bets be much lower. It wasn't uncommon at this table to have $10 bets into $100 pots.

Of course you value bet. Just look at all the weaker hands you said he could call with.

This makes no sense. Your thinking was fine. You shouldn't start waiting for the nuts in the future because it turned out that this particular villain was clueless. Imagine how dumb you would feel when you check this and villain turns over a weaker hand. If this villain is calling with that hand then he is almost certainly calling with several weaker hands as well.

Also, posting results right away can affect the responses so it's frowned upon here. It's common for new posters to do that but you should wait for some responses to come in first before doing that.

Edit: I realize that you did hide the results in your post, but it's hard to resist clicking on that!

The reason I'm rethinking it is because the value bet on the river only makes sense is if the Villain would not call but raise the turn with KQ, or would call the turn with KQ and not raise on the river, while also calling a river value bet with Axd that missed.

If I believe the villain would just call on the turn and then check the river with KQ, there are 16 combos of that and the hands I beat that will call would be 10s, AJ, A10, A2d, A6d. So there are more combos that will call that beat me at this point than weaker ones I can bet for value against, and this isn't taking into account being raised by KQ. The only way this changes is if he calls with any Ace. However, I just find it really difficult to give the Villain credit for KQ here as played.

Villain c/c with the nuts? wut.

I don't like the small preflop raise. If there's 2 limpers and you know villian is calling any raise up to $12, you should probably make it at least $12-$15, as you don't want more than 1-2 callers. Post flop is played fine, but did villain really flat your river bet with the nuts or did I misread?

That is correct, villain calls on river with the nuts. Afterwards I was stunned along with some other people at the table. I thought for sure I had it when he called. He went on to say how he had several opportunities to raise that night "but there was no reason to be greedy". There were several strange things that happened at the table with this particular villain before this hand as well. One hand another player had a flush and the villain had a terrified look on his face as he showed a full house. There was another hand where he had a straight and said "I think I have a straight" and seemed unsure of whether he was the winner. At first I thought he was trying to put on a show but this hand really made me wonder.

lawl

Isn't the part in bold wrong? I count 17 combos of hands you beat compared to 16 that beat you. And that's consistent with the result I got when I checked your equity and it was 51%. And if you're going to be results oriented, you should assume this villain won't raise the river. He made things a lot easier for you when he did that.

But more importantly, there was no way you could put 16 combos in his range when you played this. Even if you put a few in his range because you think he is bad enough to play it this way, putting anywhere near 16 combos in his range would be way too much.

Villain calling with the nuts on the river isn't that surprising to me. It just sounds like he is horrible at poker. Sometimes I think a lot of poker players don't even realize how confused beginners are.

I think a lot of people probably don't even know what poker players mean when they say they had the nuts. If these people get into a game and have the nuts on the river, I doubt they would even realize it.