River bluff vs unknown nit woman

Banana, please take this in the spirit it's intended, which is to say, I sincerely want to see you improve and do well.

I strongly disagree with your read that she never has un-paired over-cards in her range that bet the river when you check-back the turn. I think her range is almost entirely un-paired over-cards in this line.

I suspect you've pegged her as a nit, and as such assume she's just going to check-fold those hands. But even nits can find a bluff with AK and similar in this line.

Also - by your own admission, your read is based on her "vibe", and she's otherwise an unknown to you. At least one person on this forum has condescendingly referred to me as a "soul reader", and even I wouldn't assert any degree of confidence in a read based solely on a few hands' worth of observation.

I agree with submersible that your raise size doesn't make sense as a bluff, if the intent is to fold out over-pairs. It may help to look at this hand from her perspective, and assign her those over-pairs, and consider her line.

First, she wants to raise pre. Okay, fine. She has big PP's and some AKs type stuff. But her raise isn't a raise, it's just a one-chip call, and now she's multi-way. Obviously she'd c-bet flop with her big PP's, but she sort of HAS to bet the flop with AK, if she's going to rep those big PP's.

So she c-bets, and you call next to act. Now, ask yourself - do you really think she's going to slow down with big PP's on the brick turn? If the turn 5 scares her big PP's, why is she betting the river, rather than checking again?

Her line is very consistent with AK that wants to pot-control turn after you call flop, hoping to make a good TP on the river, or that the river goes check-check and she wins with ace-high. It's not very consistent with big PP's that get scared on the turn, but then are less scared on the river. That doesn't make any sense.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say she DOES have big PP's in this line. If she's checking the turn, it's to pot-control (I'd think). But then you check back. And I agree with NittlyOldMan - you're very unlikely to be checking back straights or FH's here. That just doesn't happen.

So you check back turn, letting her know you have a weak hand. If she's betting small on the river with big PP's, it's hoping to get called by the weak crap in your range that floated the flop and hasn't improved. If she's praying you call the $25, she ain't folding to the $155.

Again, I agree with Sub - if you're going to do this as a bluff, you need to make it more painful for her to call and be wrong. Her big PP's are snapping this raise off, not folding.

Raising small as a bluff makes sense in some scenarios, but this isn't one of them. It makes sense when our opponent is more polar, and we don't have showdown value. We shouldn't do this when we have SDV.

If we want to turn SDV into a bluff because we sense weakness, it's a disaster if we fold out the bluffs and only get called by the weak value. So, yeah, if you want to turn your hand into a bluff here, your bluff needs to be bigger.

If she folded, it's most likely because she had AK, and beats nothing, not even our bluffs, because what bluffs do we have that she can beat? We're not doing this with AQ or total air, right? Our most likely bluffs would be something that had some connectivity with the board when we floated the flop, some sort of pair + draw combo.

I strongly recommend you check out this Hungry Horse video on checking back the turn with SDV to bluff-catch the river - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQWXb3C5...

This hand is an almost perfect example of the concept, but for the fact that we weren't the PFR.