I guess if we really bomb it he finds a fold with a set.

Well, given V1´s reaction I put him on a range of AK, sets, possibly KQ, KJ. He might fold the latter two pf though. I guess we should discount the combos of AK to some degree. The sigh seems more monsterish than AK to me. But I don´t know.

Anyhoo, given the HH where V1 just called with a set on a straightening/flushy turn I felt like we could get away with a blocker bet here. If he won´t raise, a blocker bet keeps it cheap, disguises our hand somewhat, presumably improves our implied odds.

So...

Hero bets $100, V1 calls, V2 looks like he is counting then calls after about 10 sec.

($640) River: J

***Hero was watching V1 as the Jack came out. V1 looked concerned, immediately glaced up at us with a worried demeanor.

V2 looks defeated and checks.

Hero is like 90% sure V2 missed and is ready to muck his hand. Would it be suicidal to try to push a nit off a range of basically TPTK and sets here?

Hero thinks for like 15 seconds and...?

It's been 12 hours so I guess I might as well post my (perhaps fishy) logic here.
At the table I decided V's range as follows

AK,KdQd, KdJd by discounted by 50%=5.5combos
AA discounted

22-44 6 combos
KK discounted

For simplicity I figured AA can offset one another

Rounding off his range is 50% toppair hands and 50% sets.

So if V folds all his TP hands to a PSB that bet would be EV neutral.
I think we can always get him to fold those hands to a something smaller than PSB. So a bluff should be +EV.

I also think V folds a set a non zero percent of the time as well. Nits aren't in the business of calling big bets with the fourth nuts. Why can't we rep AdQd,JJ,KK, AQ (maybe with Ad?)?

Tricky part about this hand is, you have two villains with opposing tendencies. It appears the focus is on the nit, and so far it seems safe to assume (for the purpose of discussion) that V2 is a non-factor.

I agree that V1 has probably been on a static hand all along and is definitely on a static hand, either decent or very good by the river. Law of averages suggests his range is weighted toward top pair hands, which is good for you because he probably has an idea of how much money he is willing to call with any one-pair hand, even TPGK.

First question: has that threshold been crossed during the course of this hand. Maybe. Villain isn't so sure you are on a static hand, he has to consider the possibility you've been betting a dynamic hand, and his plan is to not pay you off if you hit. You agree, no? Otherwise you would be discounting the possibility he shows up with TP OTR.

But what? What kind of dynamic hand would you be betting here?

Flush draws capture the imagination like no other hand in 1/2. Fish love them too much; nits fear them too much. Straight draws get no respect. We all know what that means: you can get more value from straight draws when you hit. That means, precisely, that you have less fold equity. Good when you don't want a fold, bad when you do.

Don't get me wrong, you do have fold equity. But I can promise you, villain has been watching the fd unfold, and he fears the diamond OTR. I kind of doubt he was sitting there saying, "no ten! no ten!"

If, on the other hand, he was sitting there thinking, "no diamond! no diamond!" -- what does he expect you to do now?

Call me a cynic, but you bet here to represent the bluff, figuring he says, "that's what he wants me to think."

That said, it would totally work on me. You being on a set is a vanishingly small probability and the least of my concerns; I'm thinking KQ or KT, more likely the latter given my luck. So, you're counting on this guy being as neurotic and paranoid as I am. Good luck. Most of the time, you kind of have to dumb down the story. If you make it a habit to show up on the river in a big pot against a nit, with a story that is fishy, contradictory, or just too subtle for villain to figure out, too often you're gonna get caught with your and in the.... what? Anyone? Bueller?

Kind of sad, isn't it. When you're up against a nit, it's actually more fun to represent the fd, than to actually be on it.

if you can't fold the field here - just bet small to get them all to tag along. Like $40~$45.

If there is any hope of folding the field, bet $70~$75.. but I don't like this as much because it is really tough to know when to double/triple barrel here correctly out of position.

Check-call if V1 will rarely bet or bet way too small.

If V1 will bet larger when checked to, then blocking bet like $100.

River? Nobody?

With the nut FD, I prefer to check flop to steal some relative position. There are about a million ways to play the hand from there depending on what happens by the time it's our turn to act again.

If we do bet, I prefer like $40. We're not blowing 6 loose players off the hand with 1 bet, so I'd rather thin the field and build a pot for a much bigger bet down the line.

OTT: Honestly, I think I want to check again. I don't see a lot of ways to make V1 hate his hand by just barrelling. All the scary rivers overlap with our outs, and it's gonna take more than single bets to activate MUBS mode.

The fact that he sucks at vbetting anything but the ultra nuts means that we'll get a free card a lot of the time, and when V1 checks and V2 bets, we can raise to really make V1 hate life. (Sizing might force us to just flat sometimes, but I expect everyone to bet on the smaller side since the absolute dollar amounts have been screwed up by changing stakes and the relative dollar amounts have been screwed up by the fact that the pot is multiway).

OTR: I don't see any reason to discount any of the 9 combos of AK from V1's range (which I expect him to N-E-V-E-R call with) and there are only 6 combos of sets and he might even be capable of folding those now that AQ got there and there are a whole lot of better set possibilities. So yes, you can absolutely bluff here if you're confident that V2 whiffed. I'd bet ~$400 and make it look like you were betting an amount that you knew would put V2 all in just as a red herring.

Haven't read other responses yet.

Flop: Bet $70. Seems straightforward. I think we get all folds with some frequency on this texture. Not necessary very often, but often enough that combined with our equity, it's a good bet.

Turn: I think turn has to be a check. You picked up some equity, but you're still a significant dog vs likely hands. And that's an issue as it's very likely someone has top pair+, and you're not getting top pair+ to fold. And it's going to be very difficult to follow up on the river with a bluff given ranges, possible run-out, and the effect of run-out on ranges. In other words, most cards that don't complete your hand are blanks for villains' made hands. Said even more simply, I think it's a mistake to bet turn and river as a bluff against top pair+ here. I think it's way too optimistic to think you can often x3 barrel here.

River: I don't like the turn bet, and I wouldn't keep betting. Check and lose a decent % of the time. Though I would have to respect the courage / optimism if you continued the bluff even though I don't think it's +EV.

I never noticed there was a river post... oops.

River - not sure what came, but I would not bluff river in this spot.

Love flop play, hate hate hate turn bet given reads, river as played or if turn gets checked through is a check either way imo. Judging by everything you've written though I am assuming you fired river and were called by V1.

Pretty sure V bets $100-$225 with his entire range if we check to him here.

100% agree that betting turn is horrible if V will likely raise.

Would you mind elaborating?

V1 is never ever folding and we don't have a hand yet, he likes to slow play his big hands so it's probably just going to get checked through, see a free river and see if we make our hand why juice up the pot here when our equity is low, I think the only reason to be 100 here is to set villain up for us bluff jamming river which is a play I don't like in this spot

Results: