You’re right about the sizing, but I think that logic applies better to the flop, ie I should have underbet the flop. As played, I think a bigger turn bet is better.

As for what he could bluff with, see my response to Lin below. This player would have no compulsion about turning bottom two into a bluff if he thought it was better than folding, and I think he’d realize 100% that a hand like that is no good when I underbet the river. Basically I think he can have a lot of hands that were pot controlling/bluff catching on earlier streets and now realize they are no good. I am essentially turning my hand face up and daring to bluff me. Maybe I’m right that he will and maybe I’m not- the results of this hand don’t tell us that- but I’m confident that he’ll realize pretty much every hand worse than mine is no good.

I agree that I probably should have bet the flop. If he calls two bets, then I think I can just check back the river.

You’re right that this is an extremely opponent-dependent play. Not that I knew anything about his river check-raising tendencies, but I’m sure he’s very capable of doing it as a bluff, and I’m equally sure that he’s good enough to turn hands like a bad two pair into a bluff. Whether he’d do it in this spot, I don’t know, but I was betting that he would. He’s not calling with those hands. In fact I think I am in worse shape if he calls than if he check-raises. I expect a call to be extremely rare and probably come only from a set. Oh and he’s not check-calling a flush draw as the pre-flop raiser. He’d bet or maybe check-raise, but not check-call.

To clarify, I’m usually checking back against a lot of players. I’m only value-betting the ones who can’t lay down a hand on the river.

Also, I’d have to believe he’s good enough to realize that hands like AK, KT, QT, and 98 are probably no good. Right or wrong, the instincts of most players would be to check-call or block-bet with these hands, so you can’t put any of the two pair or top pair hands in the check-raise-bluff range of the great majority of players.

With this board, eliminating the two-pair hands doesn’t leave a lot of hands the bad guys could have that don’t have a jack in them.

Therefore, against most of the people I play against, I’m value-betting, not betting to induce, and it’s a slam-dunk fold when they check-raise. I think betting with the intention of calling a check-raise is highly opponent-dependent, and even then, I think you’re probably really hoping that he just calls.

I’m not saying it’s a bad play – it’s a great play in the right circumstances. It’s just that the type of opponent you can make this play against profitably in the specific circumstances described in your post is probably pretty rare, even at the nosebleed stakes. As you said yourself, they always have it.

Although you did mention that you weren’t too happy with how you played the earlier streets, may I inquire as to why you checked behind when you flopped the world? Was turn bet supposed to induce as well? If not, could you explain why it’s that small? Lastly, I find it very interesting that you say that you would, for the most part, have the best hand here. Are you assuming that from the line the villain had taken, and all the other fancy information, that it is highly unlikely that the villain would have a jack here?

wah… pretty sick hand…