I just mean that an assumption is game theory is that V is a very intelligent opponent who will accurately range us in this position. So, if we bet what is now the very bottom of our range (assuming it is ... not saying this with confidence) then it must be a bluff because an intelligent V would never be calling with anything worse due to his accurate ranging. The bet would therefore only make sense if we were able to fold out better, which makes it a bluff.

Like I said though, this comes with the disclaimer that unexploitable lines are almost never going to be the best approach in LLSNL games but it's still an interesting consideration.

I like game theory optimal chat. I'm not such a great fan of employing game theory optimal play in my game though.

Surely the vast majority of competent opponents are going to look at this and think you have 2-pair+ or a big draw on the flop when you make a near pot committing raise. They're going to only call with stuff that can outdrawn your made hands, stuff that beats your semibluffs (and contains blockers like Ac) or hands that are ahead already. However the hands that they figure are ahead already will surely reraise the flop to gii before scare cards come (or you outdrawn them).

Therefore I'm assuming V 3bets flop with all sets and flats all overpairs and any AXcc.

On the turn I assume, if hero shoves, somewhat competent V will call with:

AAcx KK QQcx JJcx ATcx AQcc AJcc QJcc

I assume V folds the AA-JJ and ATo without any club.

That's kind of the best case scenario for our shove that I think is reasonable. Against that range hero has 37% equity.

After V calls our $350 shove into $290 pot is $990 and we get 37% of it = $366 for +$16 EV

In addition we win the $290 on the turn immediately every time V folds his overpairs without a club and ATo without a club which is about 15 combos Vs the 19 combos he calls with.

So we win approx 50% of $290 and 50% of $16 for a total EV of $145 + $8 = $153.

If instead we check and V only bets his flushes and sets of kings on the river (that's 3 sets and 4 made flushes on the turn and 12 combos of FDs of which 2.5 make a flush on the river) we fold 9.5 times out of 34 so we check behind to win $290 24.5 times out of 34 which gives us an EV of +$209.

Obviously in reality we will bet if V checks river as above and that may give us some more value if he finds a call but its impossible to work out exactly how much extra.

Also V may bluff or mistakenly value bet the river with a hand we beat so that we make less than $209 after checking behind on the turn.

I guess V bluffing river combined with V mistakenly calling a small value bet from us on the river will even themselves out.

So, assuming I made no mistakes in my maths (highly unlikely!) I think I'm saying, if my assumptions for V ranges are remotely accurate (probably not!) then I prefer checking behind the turn rather than shoving the turn.

I don't have any more time to bring my ponderous (and dubious?) maths skills to bear on b/f turn.

Also I was surprised how little equity hero has against even V's range above with so few made flushes. In reality V could have more AXcc here.

Then I realised all the overpairs have 6 2-pair outs in addition to their flush outs and QQ/JJ have 3 additional straight outs. AAcx has 15 outs QQ/JJcx have 18 outs. Only the 3 combos of ATocx have only the 9 flush outs.

On the other hand hero is drawing very thin to only 4 outs against V's flushes and is drawing completely dead against the sets.

kinda this. you have to bet, but don't shove. can't give a free card, but we have enough value to not shove. bet 180 - 210. It is essentially a shove because you are never folding, but you still want him to come along.