1/2: AA, $900 deep, facing river bet

Raise bigger preflop.
Bet smaller on flop to give villain a chance to raise if he got better.
Bomb the turn.
Bomb the river.
As played fold turn. Fold river.
Not sure what's there to think about when a passive player bombs the turn+river on you.
Instead of bluff catching vs passive players, try bluff catching vs aggro players instead.

I think you played it fine. Probably have to call River as V may be value owning himself with JX.

Ditto what twitcherroo wrote. Played fine; call river. I think you won the max or lost the min.

I like the big flop bet. Could go bigger, as people basically never fold top pair or big draws otf.

Turn, I don't think this is such a bad card for you. It reduces JT and TT, which such a villain might just call with pre. Even a passive player might 3! JJ. Of course, he has some Ts that beat you now, but I don't think it's so bad. Vs a passive player you should probably bet again, as he might check Js and draws. AP call.

Having checked turn, I guess I continue to check river. I would need a soul read to fold.

Your apparent turn give-up looks so much like AK or AQ that even a passive player is going to have the green light to "value-bet" a lot of second-rate hands. Check-calling twice is perfectly acceptable against that range.

If you’re saying he’s betting $200 with Jx here, disagree.

I think that check-folding the turn is a punt. You have close to the top of your range, took a line that will induce bluffs, and have a couple of clean nutted outs if you are behind. You also beat value hands like AJ and QQ (if he plays this way.)

If villain doesn't bluff and doesn't value bet thinly, I could see folding river, but it would be a pretty big exploit IMO. If I took this line (bet big flop, check-call turn, check river) I would not fold aces against most villains facing less than a pot-sized bet.

EDIT: I don't think that having the Ad is relevant. If anything, it unblocks bluffs because I believe that most passive villains will just check back this river with A-high.

Grunch:

PRE - opening to $15 at 1/2 seems large. But you're deep, and if it's a splashy game, I guess it's okay.

FLOP - I'm mostly checking range from OOP as the PFR when HU, to let opponents stab at it. They'll often telegraph their hand strength with their bet sizing.

With the Ad in our hand, we don't need to be as worried about flushing run outs. So I'd just check.

If you're going to bet, I don't mind the larger size from OOP, especially on a somewhat wet and dynamic board.

Just be mindful that V shouldn't be floating us too wide when we use a larger sizing with our c-bet, unless our table image is bluffy or we've made a habit of being one-and-done.

I could see using a large c-bet size from OOP with a plan to check a lot of turns if we think V is the type to try stealing the pot whenever he senses weakness on later streets.

TURN - check-calling when the board pairs the T is fine. V could have some Tx in his range, but he could also be semi bluffing or betting worse for value.

We could also just barrel this card for a larger size, like full pot, to target all his Jx and draws for value. We just need to proceed with caution if he calls, and we may be in trouble if he raises.

It somewhat depends on our read of V, and what range we're giving him, and how we think he'll respond to a check versus a bet.

Definitely never folding turn when V snap bets and we're deep.

RIVER - I'd call the snap bet.

Snap bets are rarely a sign of strength. And you gave him rope to bluff by checking to him twice. Loose passive types are going to show up post flop with a lot of garbage that has to bluff when we check from OOP, even if our read is that V doesn't bluff enough.

If V made a better hand, tap the table and move on.

This is a good point, too. Bart Hanson talks about a snap bet on a nut-changing turn being bluff-heavy. OP says that he is putting villain on 98 -- wouldn't 98 need a second to process that his straight came in and choose a bet sizing to get max value from a hand like AA? Even if villain has a nutted hand like JT, wouldn't he want to at least consider that hero could have a hand like 98s?

It's very possible that you call here and see TX or whatever, but you don't have to be right too often in order for the call to be profitable.

I totally agree about the snap bets. Meant to mention that. They are more often weak than strong for sure.

The one caveat I will add regarding snap bets - when an opponent has the betting lead, and they're semi-bluffing with a draw that gets there, they will sometimes snap bet, especially from OOP. I think this is because they knew in advance exactly what cards they were hoping for, so they had their bet mentally loaded and ready to go, no thought necessary.

I've mostly seen this with straight and flush draws, especially in situations where an opponent raised the prior street on a draw-heavy board. They were semi-bluffing when they raised, which increases their anxiety level. The snap bet is an unconscious reaction to the release of tension they feel when they see that beautiful draw-completing card.

I don't think we see it as much when an opponent's hand improves on board-pairing cards, because they weren't semi-bluffing with a draw when they bet or called a bet, and weren't expecting to improve to trips or better.

If V was calling flop with TX, he'd need a moment to process his disappointment when we check turn, and a moment to think about what our range may be, before he decides what size to bet. We know we have AA and aren't folding, but he's more likely to put us on AK, which we might fold if he bets too large.

The two snap bets here are generally pretty fishy and bluff-heavy, when the turn and river change the strong hands each opponent can have in his range.

Say V did improve to trips or a boat on the turn. He'd have to take a moment on the river 7 to consider if we may have made a straight, or if we just missed with a flush draw, or just have 1P that can't call a big bet.

Say he made a straight on the river. He probably isn't snap betting turn with 89, because he has to stop and consider what he'll do if we raise, and 89 is only a draw to the bottom end of the straight, when we could have KQ for the top end.

And he probably isn't snap betting river when we check-call turn, even though he makes his hand, because our turn call looks strong, and we could be boated up. Even if he thinks we're never trapping with a boat, then he has to think about what hands we can have that are strong enough to call a bet when we check to him twice.

If V has 89dd for the OESFD, he'd probably be more likely to raise flop, not snap bet the board-pairing turn when we slow down and check. When he makes his hand on the river, he'd need a moment to think about what it means when we check to him again, and consider his bet size.

Even if he somehow has TT, he'd probably take at least a moment to think about his bet sizing when we check to him twice. And most low-stakes recs aren't going to take this line with a flopped set / turned quads.

Lastly, I think the bet sizing on this particular board texture is also a tell. It seems very indicative of a huge combo draw that is expecting to get there by the river, but then has to follow through with a large size when it doesn't. This looks a lot like KQdd or Q9dd to me. If V is truly loose-passive, he could have a lot of other missed draws in his range.

The logic at play is basically, "I haz 15-out combo draw, I'll make my hand often enough, and I can bluff when I don't." They know they're just going with their hand on the flop, so their turn and river actions are largely automatic.

If we c-bet the flop small, I think he very likely would have raised, and we could have played for stacks with a huge check-raise on the turn.

I like the turn x/c - so many draws on this board and I'm sure he'll still bet Jx. The turn/river are calls on paper but if you have some live read about his snappiness then fold the turn.