I'm referring to the frequency of turn bluffs, not the size of the overbet.

Google's AI wrote:

In No Limit Hold'em, overbetting the turn allows for a greater bluff-to-value ratio because it significantly increases the pot size, making it more difficult for an opponent to call with marginal hands, which in turn, creates a larger window for profitable bluffs while still extracting maximum value from your strong hands; essentially, you can bluff more effectively because your opponent is less likely to call with weaker hands due to the large bet size.

You're asking a valid question, perhaps two or three in one. I'll have to pay more attention to how often I'm bluffing when I over-bet the turn. It's possible I'm too value-heavy when I'm over-betting. I'll also have to look at my sizing when I'm over-betting, which I think may be too large.

I'm not positive I've been betting the turn too frequently, but I think I may be. Part of it is that I have a bad habit of losing track of the SPR when facing shorter-stacked opponents, leading to situations where I barrel turn, they check-jam, and I'm somewhat priced in to call when I was semi-bluffing.

I also sometimes forget to slow down and check back with showdown value, which I think would make some of my turn barrels fall under the heading of polarization mistakes (betting when it's not for value or as a bluff).

It's possible I'm betting as often as I should be, and I just tend to remember the times I get check-raised more than I remember the times I bet and get called or I just check it back.

The example hand I gave, of turning trips, may be a good indicator. I turned bottom trips. I think the board was QT55. I don't think I'd be check-raising that turn as a bluff anywhere near as often as I should be, if I'm supposed to be balanced. And I don't know that I should be x/r'ing rather than donking or just check-calling, or x/r'ing to 6x rather than a smaller size.

For all I know, V had a weak Qx and I got max value by checking the turn, and he wouldn't have bet again if I just check-called, so I didn't lose any value. Hard to say for sure. But I suspect a turn donk and river barrel, or a turn check-call and a river donk might get me an additional street with value, and a smaller turn check-raise with a hand like KJ or J9, followed by a big river barrel, is a better line with my bluffs.

After watching the HH videos, I've tried some overbets (1.2x pot) on the turns and had a good run of successful bluffs. However, when I have done this with value hands (pocket 2s with a set), I have been getting folds from top pair (Aces with jack kicker), and such. Small sample. But seems like it's more effective for bluffs, and I need to be more thougthful and maybe size down when I want a call.

Sounds like you're seeing the same thing I have - they over-fold to the turn over-bet. The point I was trying to make is that even when we're bluffing, we win more when they call turn and fold river.

I don't know, but I think the adjustment is to not go as large on the turn, and size up with our bluffs on the river. I wonder if I've hesitated to do it, because over-betting the turn when the pot is smaller is more comfortable than over-betting the river when the pot is larger.

I can hear my own thoughts - "He called 1/3-1/2 pot on the flop. He called 2/3 to full pot on the turn. He's not folding. Save your money, give up, and check back." I'd be even more hesitant to barrel the river if I over-bet the turn and got called.

Perhaps the irony here is that my smaller turn bets seem to increase the frequency of V's donking into me on the river, and I'm totally comfortable raising when they donk somewhat small, hence this thread. If V was deeper, I wouldn't have had to think about it nearly as long as I did. I'd just click it to $500, and expect him to fold close to 100%.

So, yeah, I think the adjustment I'm going to make is to not over-bet the turn with value or bluffs, because they over-fold. Instead, I'll stick with the more "normal" sizing, and either barrel or raise river if they donk into me.

Do not confuse people telling you that they don't think you've chosen a good spot to do something, with them being incapable of doing it. The results of this hand clearly show that you picked a bad spot, since you did not get the fold that you were "supposed" to get.

In LLSNL, and probably in all of poker, you get the money by being patient and waiting for the right spot. Whether it's the right spot to take a pot away from someone else, or the right spot to extract value, whatever it is, you can't force action. This hand reeks of entitlement tilt--you're forcing action because you saw someone do something they're not "supposed" to do. But if this guy doesn't know he's not supposed to lead into you when you have a range advantage, he also may not know he's not supposed to play back when you apply pressure. And that's exactly what happened here.