Actually, I'd take this line with anyone at the table that day. They weren't calling me on the river with A high and definitely not Q high Usually it was flop/turn calls and people gave up on river to lose to A high although there were maybe two A-high river calls vs. other players -- maybe just one. A couple of times an AX would call on flop/turn, hit the X on the river and win.

Nobody at the table was 3betting and definitely not light, and nobody this day was raising that turn w/ a draw. V was the closest to doing that, and even he didn't.

There were two/three (this guys was one of them) players who would have bet the turn if I checked, and then I probably would have just called and given up and lost on the river.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a call down to a triple barrel on KJ-low-low-low with Ace high. Only times I’ve seen calldowns to triple barrels with Ace high is on run outs that double pair the board, so that Ace high kickers will rarely play (and I would not advocate bluffing in this spot on a double paired run-out for that reason).

I have seen people get brave with Ace high before, although I have never done it, short of a two pair board where no one should have a boat in theory. But going with her description of the table:

I feel like this isn't the table you try to bluff off of pairs. This is the table you try to get three streets with top pair. Now she targeted a player that not only thinks, but probably can fold jacks or bad kings to a triple barrel so I think while I might have been more passive, I like the play and I'd probably do the same thing if I had position. I have seen that table description before as I imagine most of you 1/2 1/3 players have seen, and watch as these fish call down three streets with some mid pair, and the sheepishly mumble something about "do you have the king/ace?"

Agree to disagree on this one. I think there was room to go both ways even ignoring results, and in the end, Java had the heart to make it, and the V did not. Always fun to take those pots.

You are correct. There were one or two players at the table who were never folding a J and definitely not a K. This V was one of the the right ones. You are also correct that value betting was the way to go. I left after five hours with an $1,100 profit (brag) from doing just that -- with a few bluffs thrown in

Acceptable brag . It doesn't hurt to mix in some bluffs. And then watch the light leave their eyes when they get the courage to call again just to see pure value.

Not sure what you mean. If you think overbet bluffing is -EV in a spot you shouldn't do it. You should use a different size, or just not bluff, and continue to use the overbet size for value. I'd look at each hand in isolation if you have enough information to do that. If villain will never bluff-catch vs. an overbet then bluff him a lot and use a different sizing/line for value. If villain is very inelastic and will call at about the same frequency no matter what size you pick then bluff small and value bet large. If you're not confident either way then be balanced by bluffing at the proper ratio.

The main time to consider overbetting is when villain's range is capped. This usually happens when they take a passive action on one street and the next street doesn't help their range, especially if the they were very unlikely to slowplay for whatever reason. If villain doesn't have a lot of strong hands then they will have a very hard time dealing with an overbet. It sucks to put a lot of money in with a relatively weak hand, but weak hands still need to be called if the opponent is capable of bluffing at the appropriate frequency.

More generally it makes sense to have an overbetting range in any spot where villain isn't likely to put a lot of money in themselves. Exploitatively this is often the case vs. passive opponents who will often just call even with very strong hands, so you might want to employ exploitative overbets with nutted hands vs. habitual slow-players.