Truthfully? People do rarely bluff here, but OP wanted to know how he gets more value here.

Betting has a likelihood of getting called by a PP if villain is on supreme tilt and is a non-believer and a likelihood of folding out a Kx that feels that he cannot possibly be good in this spot, avoiding a chop.

Check/calling gives an opponent an opportunity to take a stab at the pot with worse than a K, but also forfeits our opportunity to fold out a chop pot.

I am not advocating an actual "bluff" here--we probably either have the best hand or one that is chopping on the river.

If anyone can get called by worse (a hand that doesn't chop), it's dgaf. I like a b/f $600 on river as almost nobody at this level is capable of turning their hand into a bluff against someone who fires three streets. I think villian very rarely has us beat here, and many times will chop. Definitely possible he folds a chop too, when the "scare card" ace hits and hero bets.

Hot dog, we have a wiener! (avatar jokes aside)

Now, I'm hungry.

From the description it sounds like he is just waiting to spazz out against you. I think he will bet a K almost all the time, as well as a lot of his smaller pairs if you check. He will bet an A all the time too. He probably expects you to bet a K or an A all the time on the river so a river check should get him to do some really stupid things.

This all stems from your read (that he would raise a 5 or fullhouse on the turn and that an A is pretty unlikely). I personally wouldn't even bother getting fancy against this guy and I think a 5 is definitely in his range here, but with your image and history I think it's a pretty good spot to do it. Also, if he has an A it is with a bad kicker and a c/r should get him to fold some of the time.

And finally, against players like this it's not the end of the world making a big mistake against them because the money is coming right back anyway (assuming you're gonna play with him in the future).

Thx for the replies. I had been getting rivered all night in big pots where I had good reads and was getting called down light to moderate and was bombing all streets for thinnish value. I was so frustrated when the A hit that I just checked hoping villain had a pp and not a chop and would turn it into a bluff. This was overly optimistic/kind of a feel sorry for myself cop-out imo (I thought this the moment my knuckles hit the felt). He checked back and tabled KT. I just felt like I didn't "play to the whistle" in this hand and was wondering if people thought an over-bet was in order. Or... should I just learn to appreciate the bonding that takes place when a pot is chopped?

Sknight- I was in AC, and no offense to the AC folks, but I don't plan on revisiting any time soon, so if I stack off to villain I will prob never see that money ever again.

Well, I had the same pp read, and seems pointless to bet there unless ur sure hes hero calling, and get additional value if he decides to spaz bet.

These chop situations don't come up a lot for me I don't think, which is prob why I didn't see it in this hand. Maybe I should triple merge my ranges and just start betting like monkey

Lol kwan. Single merge bro. And is live poker so slow that a workhorse like you really doesn't find himself in chop spots very often? I'm in them a lot and have too many leaks to not take advantage of the free roll that is often available imho.

I do encounter them and I do tend to psb bet them, but no one ever ever folds!! But I'm guessing I don't see them nearly as much as you do.

I have to say, even with my sometimes nitty image I don't think I've ever succeeded in folding out a chop before. Live players just love the idea of a chop. Chopping is "fun" to them, or something.

This is interesting. I always assumed TAGs would have more success chop-blocking than LAGs, based on bluff frequencies alone. Now that I think about it more though, maybe it's a better play for LAGs because their ranges are wider (they can rep way more), they probably bomb thinner in general (their big river bets are less polarized in villains' eyes) and they probably bloat pots enough in general that by the river their bet is going to be a substantial amount of bbs (which factors a lot into fe regardless of pot odds imo).

Note: I think a chop-block should almost always be an over-bet and should only be executed in spots where you are pretty certain it's a free roll.

I wouldn't say villains are necessarily thinking about ranges and how thin you value bet. It's mostly just the last reason you listed IMO. In general LAGs bloat pots way more frequently than TAGs and by the river when a LAG overbets, because the pot is already bloated, its gonna be a huge $$$ amount that most live players are uncomfortable with.

Really? Even the most recreational of players are thinking about this stuff on some level in the games I play in. "You play any 2 cards. You could have (blank), you could even just have a (blank) which would win."

I agree though that actual $ amount is the biggest factor.

Overbet chop blocks work well against bad players/rec. players, but against good players I think most chop blocks should be pot sized. Can't believe that this guy didn't bet KT on the river.

Haha, I found villain- in case any of you AC people know him. http://www.wsop.com/news/2011/Mar/32...HE-SHARKS.html is the guy I kept doubling up/had KT here. I went to check out the circuit event schedule for Harrah's Rincon and his mug was on the front page of the WSOP site. Apparently he binked a 1k the day after this hand took place- good for him, he actually seemed like a really nice guy.

(jloc- please delete this post if it's not appropriate. I would never out anyone who was anonymous to the public, but since he was on the WSOP front page I thought it was harmless/fine/kind of funny.)