Two-street hand, but which two streets?

Flop bet is a bit big but ok.

Turn you can bet like 100 here to cap him. Villian is not raising here to rep a Jx unless he's crazy.
If he calls, we can check down river or continue betting small on blanks.

This is a pretty dry board with you holding 2 blockers. I prefer a check on the turn. If you bet the turn, the villain has to think about not only that bet, but also another on the river. Easier to get some value when the villain knows how much they have to pay.

We have approximately a pot sized bet left (345 into 340, assuming you got the pot size right on the flop because 2 people called the 15 and then folded to the 3bet—but in that case 3bet bigger). I don’t see how we can fold unless we really think Villain is so predictable that we can safely fold to a river jam if we check back turn. So I think my default play is to jam turn.

Doesn't jamming turn mean he only calls with better (trips or over pair) and folds everything we beat (10, occasional underpair)? And also removes opportunity for him to make a bluff (maybe KQ) on river that we could call?

More than happy to stand corrected but interested to hear logic here

PRE - seems fine.

FLOP - why bet so large with QQ on JTx? We block a lot of KQ and QJ combos we'd want him to have, and we're making it hard for him to call with TX or 98. In a 3B pot, I'd be c-betting smaller, like 1/3 pot or less. Maybe just $50 max. We want to keep his range wide, then size up or down depending on the turn card.

TURN - ordinarily, if we c-bet small, I'd like this card, but when we c-bet large, it becomes more likely he shows up with some JX, and less likely he just has TX. And of course we still block KQ. Think we should barrel for a small size, like 40%-50% pot, or just check it back and look to bluff-catch the river.

Bonus points for being a cranky old man who silently seethes at the audacity of youth. I can empathize. Screw those college kids and their stupid hair with their stupid lingo.

In almost every live game the guy wearing sunglasses is the spot, but...

The previous HH seems bad/losing by H before the river, and that's marginal depending on sizes.

Honestly not sure wtf to do on the turn ... don't get here like this would probably be my first piece of advice.

Can see arguments for checking, betting small (100 or less), or shoving depending on lots of live things.

Would also bet that shoving goes better for CMV than for OP, but to be fair that's probably true of the other options as none of them are great.

I'd never do this, and don't think it's good for docvail/CMV, but it might be better for OP:

Bet $200, fold to any action incl. check back or fold any river that isn't a Q.

But again, think about ranges/sizes more and don't be here.

Curious to know the implication about me here. Is this something to do with my tendency towards aggression, or some other vibe I give off? Don't be subtle. Subtlety is wasted on me.

Ignoring the reads and table dynamics, if OP starts the hand with $500, I don't see how we can bet $200 on the turn and fold to a raise or river bet from V. In fact, I don't see how we can bet $200 on the turn, full stop, if we only have $345 left.

I mean...do we think TX is calling, or JX is folding? Neither seems likely. We heavily block the OESD combos V may have that might call another big bet, be it $200 or all-in.

I know I said we could bet small here, but thinking about it more, I don't see what size we can bet that isn't going to pot commit us, unless we go $100 again. And if we do that, do we really fold if V raises, knowing that he might be raising as a bluff because we "same bet" it?

I don't know the "right" answer here. Like you, I wouldn't get here this way. But magically teleported to the turn, I think the play is to check back for pot control and bluff-catch the river, or jam and pray he doesn't snap with JX.

I'd only bet small here if I was dead certain I had the best hand and was trying to induce a bluff-jam from V. I might bet $200 with JT if I thought V was just absolutely terrible and would call with every draw, TT, every JX combo, and all his over-pairs.

I think 100 flop, 200 turn screams "old guy with an overpair, or sometimes better, that isn't ever folding" and that message from OP seems likely to be believable and people will do the "obvious" thing vs. it ... fold correctly, or call too wide, maybe just call with a bad Jx and only put more money in when they can beat it. Pot odds don't matter if he's almost always got 2 outs.

Don't think it works for you because most people won't believe you are an old guy playing an overpair face up and will never bet/fold.

How old do I have to be before I get credit for being tight? I'm 53, with thinning / graying hair and a slowly expanding waistline.

Fwiw, I think your read on me is right. I don't think I'd ever attempt a bluff here, because I think I'd always be running into a brick wall, the way this was played. That's why I'd only bet a thick value hand.

Don't know what you're talking about, I got that skibidi chicken-jockey rizz.

Yup, I went too big on the flop. Not really sure what I was thinking there other than I have the best hand and you don't, so eat this!, but it lets JJ and TT pwn me hard, and those hands are smack dab in the range of a raiser/3-bet caller.

I checked back, hoping for that non-shitty river and got this:

River ($340): T

Villain puts me all-in.

Well, now we lose to TX as well as JX, and only beat stone bluffs. If we think this kid isn't likely to try bluffing *US*, then we should fold. If we think he'd have the audacity to attempt a bluff, then and only then can we call.

It's just hard to figure out what his bluffs are that get here this way. It's like AK or 99 type stuff. We have one of the worst bluff catchers in QQ.

To be fair, if we think V is capable of bluffing AK/99 then QQ is probably the best overpair hand to call with. We block QJs and unblock all his bluffs.

Lots of bluffs in range would not be my first assumption, however.

I suppose it's true we block QJ for value. I was thinking more about how we block KQ as a bluff. Maybe it's a push. I don't know.

I wonder if an argument could be made that we'd rather have AA, unblocking KQ, but also beating V's KK/QQ if he somehow plays those this way, at the expense of not blocking any combos of KJ or QJ.

But, yeah, I don't think V has many bluffs in this line. My main point is that our hand double-blocks the main natural bluff in V's range. V could have J2 and we won't lose less because of our blockers.

I stand corrected. We had the best bluff catcher.