I'm a rec player - I consider myself as better than level 1 thinker. I don't lose sleep over lost money, but I do lose sleep over not getting better.

Three hands before said hand doubled up AA v. KK in full view of V who is to my left. V is talkative, aggressive, solid.

The Hand:
H (675) UTG + 2 - 77 raise 15
V (1000) Call
BB: Call

Flop: 7, 9, J Two spades - BB check and out.
H - V would have re-raised 99 JJ - I decide to play fast and bet 45.
V - calls

Turn: 10 non spade -
H - 60 (too small?)
V - raise to 150.

I'm putting him on a semi-bluff - just texture of the hand + V capability (I turn out to be right)
What's my play assuming above?
1. Call and hope for no spade
2. Re-raise? And then what?
3. Jam it in? Does this option change if he has both spade and flush draw?

Why did you bet the turn OOP vs. a good aggro player?

Pay to draw thought process.

Is it possible that he has an 8 in this situation? Say like A8 suited to call your preflop raise? As played I call the turn and see a river. There are many possibilities that the board pairs too.

So if you're betting the turn, you should have a plan on what to do when you get raised....so what was your plan?

I get what you're saying but if I check (1) I give a free card or (2) I have to call a hefty bet. I already put him on a draw - wide range. Pay to play seemed reasonable.

My plan pre-turn to a raise on a non spade turn was to Jam - giving him terrible pot odds.

He's not paying anything off on the river with non spade.

First off, don't post results, even in vague terms like you did here, as it biases the responses and thinking about the hand. You should always be thinking in terms of ranges rather than results, and posting villain's specific hand from the get-go changes the responses from range-oriented to results-oriented thinking. If you really feel the need to post results, wait until sufficient discussion has been had.

Also, if you remember, post suits more specifically. It makes a difference in hands like this if, for example, the 9 and J are spades and you have the 7 of spades, as that eliminates pair + FD combos from villain's range.

It seems like you are putting villain on a semi-bluff as a post-hoc justification based on the hand he had this time. You should be thinking in terms of ranges and not specific hands. The only thing I see to suggest a straight is unlikely is the smallish raise on the turn. A capable aggressive villain is certainly raising an 8/KQ here and might balance that with some semi-bluffs... not sure what you mean by "texture of the hand."

You bet 60 into ~ 135 on the turn. The question of whether that's too small can only be answered after you decide what the purpose of your bet is. A less than 1/2 pot bet when a scare card putting 4 to a straight up comes seems like a "scared" bet that could induce a bluff from an aggro opponent. So if you're betting to induce here and your range looks a lot like one pair that could fold to a raise, it might be a good bet. If you're value betting, it's certainly too small, as he hardly needs any implied odds to make it a correct call with a naked FD. I wouldn't use this betsize against a player capable of bluffing some undetermined % of the time. Against someone who almost never bluffs it's fine (although then you should generally bet more for value) and against someone who almost always bluffs it's fine/optimal as then we make a lot from his bluffs. Make it more like 100 or check.

If you think villain's range on the turn is only semi-bluffs and KQ/8x hands, start from the preflop action and try to figure out what combos of hands he can get to the turn like this with.

Let's say you think the relevant 8x hands he calls pre with are 87s, 98s, A8s, and 88, and let's say he calls pre with all KQ combos. Without knowing which cards are spades it's not possible to count the combos of FD hands he can have, but let's say you have the 7s so the 9 and J are spades. So let's say the relevant spade draws villain calls pre with are QTss, KTss, ATss. Other hands he might semi-bluff with could be something like QT, KT, QJ, KJ. With more info about villain you might discount some of those hands, like say he folds QTo 50%, but let's just say he calls with all those hands pre as an example.

Now look at the flop action and try to decide which of those hands he calls with. Let's say he's likely to raise combo draws on the flop, so QT/KT/AT/KQ of spades are discounted by 75%.

On the turn we continue with that range of hands and decide which hands he raises to 150 with. Let's say we think the smallish raise on top of your small turn bet weights his range more towards semi-bluffs, so we discount straights by 50%, and let's say we discount the TP and/or OESD combos by 50% (QT/QJ/KJ) as he's less likely to raise the stronger part of his semi-bluffing range. These numbers are of course all very arbitrary and you can and should refine them with more info about villain's tendencies.

Counting combos:
KQ: 15 * 50% + 1 * 25%* 50% = 7.625
87s(1) + 98s(3) + A8s(4) + 88(6): 14 * 50% = 7
QT(11) + QJ(12) + KJ(12): 35 * 50% = 17.5
KT(12): 12 * 100% = 12
QTss + KTss + ATss = 3 * 25% = 0.75

So in this example, villain has 14.625 combos of straights and 30.25 combos of semi-bluffs. How can we put that information to use? First of all, we can look at our equity against that entire range. This is useful for determining whether it's profitable to 3bet shove the turn (which assumes he never folds to a shove). This post is already longer than I intended, so I'm not going to put that range into an equity calculator, but we'll definitely have better than 50% equity when we have ~ 20-25% against straights and ~ 75-85% against semi-bluffs. Given stacks I don't think there's much room to do anything other than call or shove. I guess if you think he folds his semi-bluffs that have crap equity against your hand to a shove you might consider the smaller 3bet, but that seems somewhat unlikely.

Shoving the turn might be profitable, but is it more profitable to call? After all, we do have a redraw against straights (so we clearly can't fold). That's highly dependent on how often villain plays various rivers with the different parts of his range and gets a bit complicated, so I'll stop there.

Awesome points Brian, thanks for sharing.

Good post O'Nolan.