Jonathan Little explains in a video he posted about "Crushing small stakes cash games" a hand break down.

The scenario was you're playing 1/2NL in middle position with 88. You raise to only $6. He said he understands some players raise to $10-$20 pre in these games but $6 is much better so you can bet 2/3 pot every street with out risking your entire stack. I find that statement a little off only because all of the 1/2NL games I've ever played in Atlantic City or even PA a raise pre of $6 just gets more callers rather than getting heads up with one opponent. Anyway we raise to $6 and just the BB calls.

FLOP comes 9c8c5d
BB Checks and we bet $9 into $13. BB calls.
Turn comes a 4d
BB Checks and we bet $20 into $31. BB Calls.
River comes Tc

** Here is where I am slightly confused.
He did say it is player dependent which is true but BB Checks he said he likes a bet of around $40 here. Thinking of what hands would the BB check call with on all 3 streets. 8/9, JT, 9T maybe A9. Saying these hands would maybe call the bet or always call the bet on the river. Ok fine I get it but he said we're betting here with the intention of Folding if our opponent check raises us in this spot.

Now I want someone to help me understand why this isn't a good spot to just check back to avoid that situation entirely compared to value bet with the intention to fold if he comes back over top?

This hand is a joke. raise to 3x BB and only the BB calls is game theory BS you read by people who dont actually play small stakes regularly. The hand then falls apart as far as usefulness because the SPR is so comically higher than a normal pot would be.

When is the last time JL played 1/2?

I understand all of it. My normal raise size is anywhere from $12-$22 depending on position and amount of opponents who limped in. I also get JL probably hasn't played 1/2 since he was a child. The reason I'm posting this on the forum is because I'm curious of the logic. I also listen because he is a multi million dollar winning player in poker so his thought process and analysis have some merit to them.

MY first thought was who would ever bet with the intention of folding to a raise.

then after reading the comments where someone commented exactly what I was thinking saying "Why raise if were just going to fold, why not just check back" that person got destroyed by multiple comments saying how he is a noob, amateur and that this analysis was way above his understanding. Which made me then think holy **** am I that big of a fish that this thought process to bet for value and then fold to a raise is so far out to me that I'm that fish as well lol.

The concepts he is trying to teach are thin value betting and the bet/fold line. Basicly we aren't getting bluffed often enough/his range is too value heavy to make calling the c/r profitable. The example he uses is just too ridiculous to take seriously. Just imagine we are $600 eff and we open to a normal size. Then think of the bets as % of the pot.

I don't see a problem with the particulars of this hand. Little is going to be playing more aggressively than most 1/2 players (which is a good idea for others too). The more aggressively you play, the lower the amount you want to raise with pf. You're not always going to have a super premium hand that is worth a lot of money pf.

The river is a classic bet/fold situation. The only hand that is going to be comfortable raising on the river is a flush. A set or straight would have raised before the river. This is hardly an advanced subject. Harrington wrote about how many players lose value on the river scared because the board becomes dangerous 10 years ago.