AKss UTG1

V1 (300) limps UTG,
Hero (300) raises to 15,
V2 (700) calls UTG2,
V1 calls

Flop (49): Ac Qd 9c
V1 checks, H bets 30, V2 calls, V1 folds

Turn (109): Qc
H checks, V bets 50, H ? (V is very loose preflop but decent postflop, also views H as solid/nitty)

Is "check/calling and evaluating river" a leak vs straightforward 1/3 opponents here that would most likely check back

-draws like JT in these spots to take a free river?
-worse Ax like AJ/AT?

It'd be better to b/f than c/f. If we underrep our hand, it should be to bluffcatch with, not to give up. If we're viewed as nitty, this seems like a perfect spot to bluff with the entirety of that floating range, which might include all sorts of PP and SDs.

edit: I missed the FD coming in. Sometimes I do c/f here, but it's v / live read dependent. Hard to give something concrete when all I know about V is "very loose preflop but decent postflop, also views H as solid/nitty."

I'd cbet this a bit bigger. There are some draws out there we'd like to charge. I'd make it $35, so not a big deal.

I don't check this turn. The turn cards sucks for our hand, but V is capable of making a move. I suspect he's not bluffing often enough for us to snap him off (even though we've shown weakness), especially with two streets to go, but I really don't want to encourage that sort of thing.

Betting OTT turns our hand into a bluff, but I think it's appropriate to bluff to stop a bluff. If V calls or raises, we can make good decisions against his likely range.

I'd x/f here if I didn't think V would bluff even nearly often enough. I'd x/c if I thought he bluffed more too much.

But I think x/c against this V has us calling somewhat too much (since he's bluffing somewhat too little) and then facing a completely crappy spot OOP on the river.

The turn bet puts him in the spot of having to make a tough decision. Even if he has a flush or a Q, he's not loving life. We could have either one beat with a bigger flush or a boat.

^ You're turning AK into a bluff? What better hands fold? If you're doing it to deny equity to draws, worse hands, it's a value bet.

Also, although he may not love life with a flush or Qx in this spot if I continue firing, there's just no way LLSNL Vs are ever getting away from those hands, so trying to get him off better hands is an exercise in futility.

I'm not really hung up on whether a bet is labeled "for value", "a bluff", or "Ralph the Wonder Llama". I'm betting the turn because I think it's more profitable than checking. I'll leave it to people smarter than I am to figure out what label it should have.

By x/c we're ceding the initiative to opponents and suggesting that either the turn scared us or we didn't flop well. It happens that the turn did scare us (in the "V might have drawn out" sense, not in the actual fear sense). Checking here encourages opponents to play more accurately against the hand we actually happen to have.

Put another way, it encourages people that probably don't bluff enough to bluff more. Having encouraged a bluff, we're now going to feel like we should call more often.

But if V still isn't bluffing often enough, even with our induction, we should lay it down. So we've encouraged V to bluff when we're going to fold. This is not a good money-making technique.

If we continue our initiative on the turn, we mostly prevent V from bluffing at all. If he raises, the vast majority of LLSNL V's are bluffing ~never and we can easily lay it down. Even if he only calls, we can be pretty sure he's got a good hand and can probably easily fold to a river bet.

We also force draws like JT to surrender their equity, which necessarily improves our equity.

Overall, I think a bet is more profitable (or less unprofitable if you want) than a check. We're risking $50 on an aggressive action rather than calling roughly $50 OTT and then facing a river bet we're not going to know how to handle. We lose roughly the same OTT when we're behind, but probably less on the river and avoid donating equity to V's draws.

If V were aggressive, so that our induction would get him to bluff more than he should, meaning we're happy to snap him off, then I like a check.

If V is so passive that he won't bluff even with our induction (or will bluff only very slightly more), then I like a check.

If V is such a station that he'll still call with AJ and worse, then betting is obviously good.

+1 to case2 here

How about a smaller bet OTT then, Case2? Like $40 to get worse Ax to call.

Yeah, as long as we don't give ourselves a tough decision if V comes over the top, smaller is better.

I see fishes block betting small in these spots too. Maybe they're better than me.

If you're not taking the pot away with some well timed aggression when they do this, you're leaving some money on the table.

That's why I'm not wild about betting small here. I'd rather put in a few more chips now and make opponents have the tough choice than try to save some chips and let them give me the tough choice.

I guess another way to think about this is like this:
You have a TP hand. Those are good to win moderate pots, but suffer when the pot gets large. Good players know that and can try to put pressure on you. Even bad players can recognize that middle card pairing and a check on your part is probably a pretty good bluffing spot.

So it's not good to make your hand look like a TP hand unless V is too weak to take advantage. You can either over-rep or under-rep as long as you then play accordingly.

If you under-rep, you tend to keep the bets smaller and tend to make V bluff more. If that moves him to bluffing too much, that's great.

If you over-rep, you tend to eliminate bluffs and clarify his range. If that keeps a somewhat passive player from taking a shot, that's good too.

You want to make aggro players more aggro and passive players more passive so they're making more of the mistake the already tend to make.

By choosing your bet sizing (from 0 -- i.e. a check -- up to pot size or even more) you can manipulate your opponent's actions and his range. Forget value/bluff/whatever. Think about using your actions to get V to do what you want him to do.

I wonder if this logic holds true even in cases where I raise pre with say 99, get 2 callers and just check/give up on a KT4 board instead of bluffing/double barreling to stop bluffs?

Assuming that's a serious question, I'm pretty sure you can figure out the answer.

To point you in the direction of what I think, consider whether

AsKs on a board of Ac Qd 9c Qc

is roughly the same hand as

99 on a flop of KT4

and whether they should probably both be played the same way.