Grunch:

Don't think this is thin at all, this is a slam-dunk value bet and not v-betting here is a significant mistake. He has quite a bit of TsXs in his range and you pretty much only lose to T9 while beating AT-JT. As far as sizing goes, $200-$225 sounds about right to get him to sigh-call. Larger probably gets too many folds.

Post-grunch edit:

Think people are seriously misreading V's river tell in this spot. When most live players tank-check the river, it's because they have a marginal strength hand and don't want you to bet. Also, the majority of the live player pool is not checking this river with a nutted hand like 6s7s or QsJs. If OP is beat in this spot, it's typically by something like T9ss or 98.

It is not that I'm pessimistic about betting into a better hand; it's that I think this is a spot where if we bet, the most likely scenarios are, in this order: 1) Villain folds; 2) Villain has a better hand that he calls or raises with; 3) Villain calls with a worse hand; 4) Villain raises with a worse hand. Almost anytime this is the order, checking back is correct.

ATsai claims 3 is ahead of 2, which may be true, but I am not sure. I agree that if we believe this, then we need to bet, but I am not convinced.

Let's say Villain's range here, other than air that he will always fold, is all 4 combos of AT-JTss, 2 combos of J9ss and 97ss, 12 combos of 87, 2 combos of 98s, 4 combos of 76s, 1 combo of T9ss, and 1 combo of QJss. (I am including offsuit hands we beat, but only suited hands that beat us, to account for ATsai's claim that better hands would often lead the river.)

That means there are 4 combos of 1 pair hands that we can be virtually assured will call a bet, 8 combos of hands that beat us, and 14 combos of hands we beat that might or might not call.

Given this range, for this bet to make sense, Villain has to call with the hands we beat roughly 30% of the time. So if we think this is the right range, value betting may make sense, but may not.

However, there are two problems:

1) If it happens that Villain calls 28% or less with worse than top pair, we can't bet.

2) We don't know that's the right range. There are a couple obvious ways we could be very wrong. One is if he plays offsuit connectors preflop but checks all his straights and better 2 pair to us on the river. Then there are now 4 combos of hands we can expect to call, 14 hands that may or may not call, but 27 combos of hands that beat us. In this case we could get called by all the 8x and 9x in Villain's range 100% of the time but it's still not a good bet.

Another way we could be wrong is if he doesn't play offsuit connectors. In that case we still have 4 hands we can expect to call, 8 hands that beat us, but now 5 hands that may or may not call, instead of 14. This time we can't profit on a value bet unless we're certain he calls with those 5 hands almost all the time.

While this could definitely happen, and in games other than the ones I play this could easily be a correct value bet, I am not sure why people are asserting this is not thin. How are you defining "thin" if this doesn't fit the criteria? I am not using "thin" as a euphemism for "bad" as some others on this forum probably do. It might be bad, or it might be thin and good, but I have a hard time seeing how it could be not thin. I mean I guess if you're so optimistic that you think my original range is correct AND we get called 100% of the time by 8x or better, then it's not thin, but...100% is quite optimistic. This is not a good runout for 87/86. Those of you who think this is not thin: would you bluff AK on the river?

EDIT: Forgot that if we include 87 we also have to include 98.

Second edit: I think ATsai and I must play in different games because where I play, river leads are bluffs somewhat often (unless the river completed a flush) and river value check/raises are somewhat common. People do not always lead strong hands out of position on the river in my player pool.

Villain could have 97dd, 97hh, 97cc...not just 97ss. Villain could also have A8s. Villain could also have 86s. Guys limp/call JJ UTG at 2/5 NL sometimes too.

Therefore, you are not counting enough 1 pair combos that may pay off. You are conveniently disregarding a lot of 1 pair combos that could be in Villain's range.

Once you come up with a realistic range for hands that Villain will get to the river and then check to us...you will see that there are a ton of combos of worse 1 pair hands that will sometimes call a river value bet.

I am not sure why you are coming up with an unrealistic range for Villain that gets to the river (for example: claiming that only 1 combo of 97ss is possible while ignoring 3 combos 97dd/97cc/97hh), but it really distorts reality when you mis-range Villain like that.

You haven't added A5ss, 75ss, 65ss, 54ss either. These 4 combos of flopped pair+FD are very important to the analysis, and I wouldn't be surprised if Villain chose to hero-call with them 10%-25% of the time. Nor have you considered heavily discounted combos of 77/66/44/22.

The most damning part of the mis-ranging is the forgetting of JJ. If we discount JJ 50% because we only expect Villain to limp/call JJ 50% of the time, Villain will still be calling river with those 3 combos of JJ almost 100% of the time.

This is what a realistic analysis would look like:

50% discounted JJ (3 combos limp/call out of 6 preflop combos with 100% calling river)
ATss-JTss (4 combos that 100% call river)
75% discounted 97s (25% hero call = 1 combo calls river out of 4 possible combos)
77.7% discounted 8x suited (22.2% hero call = 2 combos call river out of 9 possible combos of A8s/87s/86s)
87.5% discounted 5xss (12.5% hero call = 0.5 combos call river out of 4 possible combos of A5ss/75ss/65ss/54ss)
90% discounted under pocket pairs (10% hero call = 2.5 combos call river out of 24 possible combos of 77/66/44/33)

--> Approximately 13 combos (already discounted) pay off a river value bet

Even if we make the ridiculous assumption that Villain is checking 100% of his rivered 2pair+ combos, Villain only has 6 combos of QJss (1), 76ss (1), T9ss (1), and 99 (3).

--> Conservative: Hero gets paid off on a river value bet by worse 13/19 = 68.4% of the time.

68.4% of the time is very conservative. If we assume that Villain only checks rivered 2pair+ 50% of the time...

--> More Realistic: Hero gets paid off on a river value bet by worse 13/16 = 81.25% of the time.

Yeah...getting paid off by worse 68%-80% of the time is what I call semi-fat value.

I didn't even bother including 5x suited hands (without FD) or 3x suited hands in the above analysis. It wouldn't surprise me to see Villain occasionally hero call down with 65hh or A3cc once in a blue moon.

Don't over bet the river that'd be bad, a thin value bet here I like, as most have suggested. Vs a thinking player maybe jam but vs a rec, nah.

just check. he's unlikely to pay off a bet with much that you beat.

he might just cal with 2p, but i can't see him folding much that beats you either.

Actually, I made a mistake. Villain could be checking 76hh/76dd/76cc in addition to 76ss/QJss/T9ss/99. That's a total of 9 combos of rivered 2pair+. (76s (4), QJss (1), T9ss (1), 99 (3))

CONSERVATIVE (assuming Villain checks 100% of rivered 2pair+ combos): Hero gets paid off on a river value bet by worse 13/22 = 59.1% of the time.

MORE REALISTIC (assuming Villain checks 44.4% of rivered 2pair+ combos): Hero gets paid off on a river value bet by worse 13/17 = 76.5% of the time.

I apologize for forgetting to include 76dd/76hh/76cc in my earlier analysis. I still think getting value from worse 59%-76% of the time is a pretty clear semi-fat value bet.

Just a difference of opinion then because I consider under 60% to be squarely in the "thin" category, and it's borderline. 75% is definitely fat value though. I'm not totally convinced where in that range we're going to fall, but I am now convinced that this probably should be a bet unless 1) Villain can check/raise us as a bluff (which I don't think he can); OR 2) we don't have the skill to lay down QQ (which I think OP does); OR 3) we have some kind of timing tell that alters our ranging. (For example, I think the fact that he took 30 seconds before calling the turn means we probably can rule out 97 without spades.)

What was his other card? What suit?

Rather than showing when he says "ten" we should patiently wait for V to table his cards. (Then show ours quickly, so we aren't slow rolling.). We are going to have to table both of ours to take the pot, so we should not give him the opportunity to fold his after verbally stating just one of them. Then we can reconstruct his play, and use the info later for more accurate ranges, reads.

This. Except I might consider folding to a shove because 2/5 V's just don't bluff much to make the call profitable.

Overbetting/betting PSB is horrible without some kind of metagame/history. And getting afraid of 2 pair is super mubsy.

V has Tx often here and WILL call a small bet.

The important things in this hand are:

A) Combinatorics
B) The FD misses

A)
Range we now lose to:
- 67, 16 combos
- 89, 9 combos
- TT, 3 combos
- 99, 3 combos
Total: 31 combos

Range we beat that call a river vbet:
- JJ, 6 combos
- ATss, 1 combo
- A9ss, 1 combo
- A8, 12 combos*
Total: 20 combos

Usually, I would significantly discount those A8 combos because most people will fold this pair now vs our super strong perceived range. But since B) The FD misses, this is our golden ticket to get looked up super light.

So I think we CAN vbet river but it MUST be a small vbet because we need him to call with all A8 combos. I like bf $100-$200 on the river.

Agreed this spot separates the winners from the crushers.