[franknagaijr]

[ QUOTE ]
People generally don't make it this high without being aggressive. He's probably not going to bluff here that often, but I'm sure every now and then he's shoving some whiffed hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand the concept. and I can see villain generally calling or betting any flush. However, the turn check-raise by hero might have represented NFD/NLD among other things, so there has to be some doubt in villain's mind if his flush is second best here.

Here's the math involved in 'value bet' versus 'bluff catcher':

If hero catches a bluff, he gains an extra 740, if hero convinces villain to lay down a better flush, he gains an extra 2727. What this means is that if villain bluffs 50% of the time, the expectation there is $370. To gain a similar expectation by betting into a better flush, villain only needs to lay down a better flush 13.5% of the time. (Hero's intention to call any river bet makes the EV comparison easy. )

The relevant question here is what percent of the time will villain have a better flush as compared to a bluffing hand that he will bet, and how often would villain bluff the straight compared with how often villain might lay down a middle flush.

Edit: If we assume V will call w/ a worse hand 20% of the time if H bets, but will bet a worse hand 70% of the time, that's a 50% EV increase by bluff-catching, but H only needs to push off a worse flush 13.5% of the time for pushing to be a break-even play.