It's been awhile since I last posted, but I've been lurking for a bit and just started getting back into live play after a couple years of playing extremely sparingly. Needless to say I have a lot of work to do...

Anyway, this hand happened at very passive 1/2 NL with not a ton of action. The V had just sat down a couple hands ago so nothing notable about him, just a couple of folds. I'm early 30s white guy who has been one of the more aggressive players at the table and I think I had raised a bunch while he was sitting there.

One limp to me in CO with 44, I raise to $12 V calls from SB, rest fold.

Flop ($24): Q 9 6

Seems like a pretty good C-bet spot, check, I bet $15, he calls.

Turn ($52): 8

Admittedly I don't have a good handle on his range but him being new I can't rule out that it's pretty wide. In retrospect I probably gave him way too much JT and sets when thinking about a turn check, but the way the room was playing he could have plenty of AQ, KQ, Q9 and lots of random 9s too.

River: ($52): 9

He checks. At this point I really doubt he's checking a 9 or any flush or straight after I checked back the turn, so I bet $35, thinking it looks like I backdoored a draw or trips after taking a free turn card with an otherwise mediocre hand.

My main question is should I be making these types of river bluffs on scary boards at this level, or are we going to be getting called way too light after the turn check? Should the river sizing be bigger? All comments appreciated obviously.

With no read on V, never bluffing. Can't we even get demographics on V? Not that that's enough to make me bluff a river with SDV against even a stereotype-able V with only a couple of hands of history.

After you checked the turn, you can't really get him to fold much on the river, so yes, I think in this hand it's a mistake to bet the river. You have some showdown value, so take advantage of it.

I was going to add it, but I didn't feel like it helped in any way. He was about a 40yo middle eastern-looking guy, but he really hadn't said or done anything too notable. The best I can do with a combination of his appearance and the average player in the room is "didn't look crazy, probably very ABC-type player".

This is a prime spot for an overbet. Yes it's an unknown villain, but he doesn't know you either. He's likely to interpret a big bet as a big hand. No reason not to.

$35 is going to get snapped off EVERY time at 1/2. Literally EVERY time.

I bet $85-$100. Fold to a shove obviously, but it's really really hard for him to call with any hand that would reasonably check all three streets.

Without reading any of the post, the answer is yes..... Bluffing is burning money at 1/2. Value betting is printing money. Now I will read the post and reply below...

You are likely ahead if he checked the turn and river, so if you bet, it is likely a value bet, not a bluff.

The lack of action makes it difficult to narrow his range. I would check behind and likely win at least 50% of the time.

Risk $100 to win $52....... Without reads, and the way this hand was played this seems like lighting a Benjamin on fire. Does this actually work for you?

Bet $100 and then feel a little sick when he says, "Why so much?" and calls with QTo

Against a lot of players, this will work, but I really don't think it's worth it. Looks like such a bluff. Plus, we do have SDV. I might try it with a big hand and hope to get paid, though.

Probably not. Middle-eastern poker players tend to have some gamble in them. I wouldn't bluff one until they've shown an ability to fold marginal hands.

No, for it to be a value bet you need to be targeting worse hands that will call. Every draw came in and the board paired. You're never getting paid by 2's, 3's, or Ace high.

Our hand has ZERO show-down value

I will make a large river over-bet bluff at least once or twice per session.

And they are successful an ENORMOUS percentage of the time.

If $100 sounds like too much, then bet $70. Whatever, just make it something unusually large. Pick a bet size that you'll only see once or twice in an hour at your table.

I don't think V is very strong here. He wouldn't be checking the turn and river with JT, Qx, 9x. I think his most likely hand is something like 87 or 76. I don't consider 44 having showdown value here as the only hand you are beating is A-high. I think you can credibly represent AQ or KQ by blasting this river for a "value" bet of $50-60.

I bluff the river more than most (I think), but your only way of winning this pot is by betting the river. A $50 bet means you need V to fold 50% of the time. Given how passively he played this hand, I don't think it is that far fetched. If he snaps you off with AQ/KQ or 9x than just make a mental note and value bet him to death when you have two pair+.

Just check, we still beat like 25% of his range if he calls flops with AJ,AT,KJ,KT

I also think we can actually get a fold about 60% of the time with a pot sized bet. So betting is probably +EV as well.

Based on the thoughts thus far. Which do you think would be most profitable?

A. Overbet river $70-$100

B. Pot Sized bet river

C. Check

I doubt he folds that often. Even if he does, I don't think it's profitable.

Note: I used your estimate that we're ahead 25% of the time and that checking is +EV.

http://pokerblufftools.com/calculators

I did not say betting was better than checking, both options are +EV

Jesus, just check! You got two early streets in on a V that has ck to you 3 times and has plenty of AK,AJ,AT,KJ that you actually beat at SD. Of course there are plenty of weak single pair hands that could fold a lot to some oversized riv bet, but thats just spew and I'm quite surprised to see so many comments supporting that line - And by spew I mean you're looking to find a way to win a pot just for the sake of winning a pot (thin value at best) instead of looking for ways to make money (getting to SD cheaply with bad hands, avoiding 2/3 barrel bluffs with no Eq at 1/2, etc)

Here's an easy way of looking at it:
You're being exploited by V almost every time you bet riv. Whatever you were beating is always folding now anyway, whatever was crushing you that ck to induce is calling/raising, and most importantly all of Vs "bad" calls (why we play poker) are winning large pots instead of small ones. All his folds are fine because it's an inexpensive mistake OTR.

You're exploiting V when you ck back every time he has value and needs to induce (Qx+, str, fl, trips, FH) and should be thrilled to SD any weak hand in a small pot.