I like to consider the float a bit more often when his range contains less hands better than ours (and try to showdown A high), but his UTG range is probably so pair heavy, I'd rather just try to fold out non-set pairs on the flop.

But most of his pairs are **** and basically air anyways. Lets say an 8% UTG+1 range which is pretty much 22+,AQ+,KQs so that breaks down to

22,33,55,66,88 = 30 air pair combos = 34% of range
TT,JJ,QQ,KK,AA = 24 overpair combos = 28% of range
44,77,99 = 9 set combos = 10% of range
AQ+,KQs = 24 overcard combos which we have crushed = 28% of range

So I don't really mind the flop raise either since he folds so often, but can't we accomplish the same thing using position with a higher ensured success rate when faced with a turn check for a cheaper price, plus potentially get some value from AQ/KQ/barrel-bluffs the times we pair up? We also give ourselves the chance to better realize equity against TT-KK which might decide to ship the flop depending on our image.

This. IMO if you want to be a winner at the stakes don't try to bluff unknowns off overpairs.

terrible card to bomb the river with imo. The seven gives you less sets to rep and the flush draw missed so I think its unlikely villain folds an oveprair getting those odds after calling the flop and turn.

Would want to know his turn cbetting frequency. If its high then I would like the flop raise. If its low, I would go for a float.

flop is fine
c/ turn, that's as blank as they come and you will get very few folds from whatever called the flop, esp as micro players aren;t very fond of folding to begin with

The thing is, we need him to fold soooooo little for betting to be profitable. He has to fold like 1 in 5 times for it to be good to bet. This is what people miss wrt being aggressive in spots like this, it doesn't have to work very often at all, and it often works way more than people think it does.

I don't know about that, it's a tempting reason to do it but I see it more or less like the 'let's call river when we need to be good so rarely' and we actually never are. Can you come up with a realistic range that would fold to a barrel? We also end up on rivers like this when it's purely guess work if he folds a bluff catcher. In my experience at 50nl, it's a pretty bad idea to force folds. That's just my oppinion tho.

I agree with not wanting to force folds, and that's why I don't want to barrel the river. We have zero equity vs a calling range and his turn call has shown that he doesn't want to fold his hand.

His flop call doesn't show anywhere near as much strength as his turn call though. People will peel a flop raise relatively light because they think you're bluffing or whatever and they want to see if you'll continue betting. Once you fire that 2nd barrel they confirm to themselves that you have the goods and they give up a ton. People make mistakes too, they'll call the flop with a plan in mind only to panic and surrender once you bet the turn (have to admit that I'm guilty of this from time to time, so I'm guessing a random unknown 50nl'er is gonna do stoopid crap like that too).

If we give ourselves 15% equity (ignoring river action for simpicity, so basically assuming that we bet the turn then just check down every river, or fold if raised), then he needs to fold 25% for our bet to be b/e.

If we say 20%, he needs to fold 18%.

Imo he's calling the flop with hands like TT or A9 and then folding them on the turn. He's also sometimes folding QQ+. It also works out well for us when he calls his draws and we get to sd and win with A high.

Does our range really contain a lot of draws? Are people really calling UTG raises with SC`s in the HJ?

Against weak tight nits yeah, everytime so that we can bluff raise flops like this.

I agree that having the equity that 2 good outs provide is a big pro for betting but I still don't think enough is folding, coupled with the risk he c/r some draws or for thin or fat value and then the equity we had goes out the window cause we're not seeing a river.

Bolded part is the sticking point then. I believe that enough is folding. In fact I believe he easily folds say 30% or more. You don't think that so we have to disagree on a point that's going to be hard to prove. I would say that in my experience, we get enough folds, but without doing a full db analysis, it's going to be hard to show otherwise. I'm going to try and run some filters to see what kind of success rate we get in these spots but it's going to be fairly difficult to come up with anything conclusive.

Edit: I ran a filter on my current db and out of 145 hands where the flop was 2-tone, I raised the cbet then barrelled the turn, I saw the river approx 50%. I bet/folded 6 times, so I'm assuming that every other time we didn't see the river was when I got a fold. I wanted the filter to show a 2-tone flop then a brick turn, but HEM2 doesn't seem to have that filter for the turn, so this sample includes all scare/good barrelling turns.

Dosnt seem to be many of those abouts, i think the biggest problem about nits is that they wait for so long to play a hand that they find it really hard to fold it. So trying to get one to fold an overpair seems a WR killer. Thats a massive generalization but in my experience it tends to be mostly true. Most of the reason nits are nits are because they cant hand read so i guess most just play their own cards.

I'd say that most nits are weak tight. The rare ones that aren't were the winners I.e zzn etc. they actually played nit/aggro. Most play nit/weak. They have a preflop and flop game but get lost on the turn and river where their default is to fold to aggression.

checking river, we may even win showdown (discounting 15/9 due to sample size).