AWWWWWINNNNNN

[BobboFitos]

g dollaz explained it pretty well. i think your ev of checking is higher then ev of bluffing all in. i do think the bluff is +EV (so this would be correct with say 22)

i dont agree 99 will call, but i think any ace will. so, gray area of a fold is small.

[teh_mewse]

i see what bobbo is saying, but i believe that if the villain had a higher af, this is a great play.

The villain has 0.8 af, which is ridiculously low. You guys have pointed out that it makes him a call station, but lets not forget it also means he doesn't like to bet. He could easily have a fairly powerful ace and is just too afraid to bet it. The fact that he's short stacked is another reason why he might make a call here with a marginal hand.

general rule of thumb is that bluffing a call station is -ev. Bluffing a shortstacked call station is --ev. And bluffing $220 for $52 against a shortstacked call station is ---ev. Granted, he has shown a lot of weakness, and i think this is a good play under certain conditions, but there are better spots than this hand.

Summary of my evaluation: Potential $270 loss or $52 win. Most players fold 5/6 times, making the move +ev. But i don't think this call station is gonna fold 5/6 times, there are better spots.

**edit - alternative play here is to bluff like 150. He's going to make the call the same number of times as if you bet the 220, but you're putting less money at risk for the same effect.

[MATT111]

I don`t think it`s worth it even if villain turned QQ face up. By overbetting the river like this you offer villain the additional incentive of feeling like a genius when he snaps off a bluff. Betting 3/4 of the pot is better than this imo but checking behind is probably best.
I like bluff overbets in general much more against good players against which you have a history.