Because I don't believe we can state with such certainty that V is never checking Ax on the flop or betting Qx on the turn. Our hand sucks and is unlikely to improve, and we have players behind us. It might be one of the easiest folds I've seen on this forum.

Are we sure Villain isn't capable of a 3! semi-bluff when our line looks FOS, and we have "pulled a few moves in the past?" Our image is TAG, so AQ, AA, QQ would have raised pre, 33 would have bet flop. We represent A5s and 55 only with our raise, which is 5-6 combos. Meanwhile, there are a ton of semi-bluffs we could be doing this with, and we probably aren't balancing our range properly and are bluff-heavy.

If villain is bad and players left to act are not overly passive or stationy, I think this might be a good bluff, otherwise 66 is almost the nut worst hand in our range to do this with, isn't it? We have no blockers, can't stand a 3! and are almost drawing dead when called.

We don't need to be 100% certain, he might fold Ax also. And if he bets Qx he's probably folding it.

KK on a Q83 is also unlikely to improve, that alone isn't enough of a reason to forego betting.

Who all limped pre and checked otf. They'll call with draws, fold made hands that are slightly better than 66, and rarely will show up playing Ax like a box, even if they have Ax after a bet and a raise they're considering folding it.

The only b/3b with draws I ever see are guys down to $100 fed up after losing all night and wanting to lose so they can go home.

Is anyone paying attention to OP's image? And if they are, are they adjusting their play accordingly? It sounds like the most difficult $1/2 game in the world if everyone is.

You're giving V tons of credit for knowing things about poker. One of the best regs in my old room once had J7hh on a board with the Kh, Qh, 9h and wondered how unlucky he was that he ran into the nut flush, knowing the guy had a flush just not how strong. The cards accounted for wasn't something he understood. T8hh and T6hh are the 2 best flushes he can possibly beat. Just because this guy is a "good reg" doesn't mean he's Ivey.

Balancing your range at $1/2 is a mistake.

I raise/fold all the time, not being able to stand a 3-bet is good. You get into trouble when you have so much equity you need to call a 3-bet.

I mean that from the opponent's perspective our range will be unbalanced, and if he is "good" he can exploit that.

I probably just give way more credit to a player with a "good" descriptor than others. I don't consider myself "good," but I'm the best player by a longshot at most of the tables I sit at around here.

I think at the very least a player can't be called good if Hero's TAG image doesn't matter to him. Picking up reads on other players is fairly fundamental.

"Good" doesn't communicate much because different people have different standards about what it means to be good. Whether or not I would make the play you are suggesting depends a lot on what type of "good" villain is, which we don't know.

Turn is barf. River raise fold, but idk what he could be jamming to our river raise fold (I think)

Fold turn, raise river as played.

You can be good and have no clue what "exploiting an unbalanced range" means.

Even if this guy removes strong hands from OP's range, it doesn't mean he'll 3-bet as a semi-bluff.

789-J-T, guy bets river, guy raises ~$50 of $250 eff, call. Bettor has QJ, raiser has KQ and says "Yeah I figured you had the Q." So he thought something that wasn't insane but his action was insane. KQ not shoving is horrendous.

There's hand-reading and the second step is knowing what the other guy will do with that hand. You must hear guys say "I knew you had TP, why couldn't you fold?!" Figuring him for TP is good, the bad part is hoping he'll do what you want and if he doesn't you get mad.

Even if this guy suspects something fishy odds are he'll just flat.