It's a playable bluff in equilibrium, the debate is about if it's a good bluff in practice

no because if i'm understanding doodoo correctly we're exploiting them in the opposite way. we're assuming that because of villain's raise sizing otr that a higher % of his value range is 1p Qx than it would otherwise be, so we want to raise AJ as it unblocks Qx while blocking QJ. if we started to 3b hands that block Qx without other good bluff properties we'd actually be playing into villain's hands here.

also i don't think its fair to say 3bet bluffing otr with this hand is purely an exploit. what this thread seems to have found is that in theory its a mix between all 3 (at least against a more standard river sizing; we don't really know whats going on with villain's raise size in game) and that many people (brokenstars, tombos, myself) agree that in a normal spot in practice we slightly deviate from that and don't rly ever 3b it. doodoo has argued that its probably theoretically a mix vs this sizing too but in that in practice here we can again slightly deviate but in the opposite direction by 3betting it more, which i could go either way on.

I agree. What villain didn't want to risk was that big stack. The difference in my sims, I actually work with the effective stack size. It is not worthy of a consistent practice, 0 ev to negative is losing in the long run.

Oh okay as long as we are all the same page

He rolled a passive number? Seriously if you were to play an actual solver you would sometimes see some funky lines.