[6-max Zoom] Not sure here PF, F and R

Preflop I prefer to just call with 88 but with your population reads I don't mind it. You still have to make it bigger though, as there is a limper in the pot and you give too good odds.
Flop bet is fine, you can bet a few bbs more.
Turn I want to bet for value against the fish and free showdown as we are in position.
As played, I like your call on the river - draws missed and his sizing is huge so he is polarized (weaker Jx won't bet so big and he doesn't have many of those anyway, only the diamonds). Not that many 6x in his range and many missed draws so calling should be fine with these odds.

If you decide to call on the river, it is decidedly not because the river bet is big. You do it in spite of the river bet being big (if you do it).

Preflop you could call or 3bet to get more value out of those fish. If you 3bet you could do it a bit bigger here.
Flop ok.
Turn doesn't change much but brings another flush draw so I guess betting would be ok.
As played on the river villain bets pot, I have a population read at NL2 that pot size river bets are polarized and quite often they are bluff. Also villains line doesn't make much sense and it suggests that he is bluffing. If he hit his J he would probably bet smaller to get calls or x/c and sets he would bet/raise himself. I think calling is ok.

There was another similar hand where I told the same thing, that it looks like a bluff and calling is not a big mistake. Some guys strongly disagreed with me about this. I don't know if calling is +,- or 0 EV in the long run but personally I can see myself making a hero call here. Just based on villains line and population read that pot size is quite often a bluff.

It is very dangerous to play using inverted logic. Big bets are for big hands (and big bluffs), but winning poker involves getting more money in with strong hands and bluffing as cheaply as possible. Your gamble is then that your opponent doesn't understand this fundamental fact. The strategy versus players that affirmatively do read hands this way is to just play totally naturally. Shove AI with nuts expecting calls and bluff cheaply, expecting folds. Easy game.

Preflop and flop are ok.
Betting turn is a good one. We betto make draws pay and give us a chance to xb on river.
As played, call and make a note.

Originally posted by YohanN7
It is very dangerous to play using inverted logic. Big bets are for big hands (and big bluffs), but winning poker involves getting more money in with strong hands and bluffing as cheaply as possible. Your gamble is then that your opponent doesn't understand this fundamental fact.

The thought process is actually simple and quite common. "I have a bluff and I want you to fold => bet big to look strong" We're playing nl2 here, expecting sophisticated thought processes from players will not work out very well.

Of course I'm not saying we should just start bluffcatching every time we see a big bet. We still have to think about ranges but if there is a lot of air in villain's range, some medium strenght hands and not that much nuts, seeing a big bet is better for us compared to a smaller one - it makes the weaker valuebets unlikely and doesn't reduce the bluffs.

Originally posted by la55i
There was another similar hand where I told the same thing, that it looks like a bluff and calling is not a big mistake. Some guys strongly disagreed with me about this. I don't know if calling is +,- or 0 EV in the long run but personally I can see myself making a hero call here. Just based on villains line and population read that pot size is quite often a bluff.

Yea thats why i posted this hand too. Although not exactly the same line, its very similar. Im having a problem with calling weird all-ins/big bets on the river, i think its close but overall i might be losing money on those spots, i know i am losing money on villains shoves on the river, not so sure about those big bets, its something i should look in my database.

Edit: Here is my graph for all-in calls on the river, on NL2 Zoom. I even posted it on my blog to remind myself to stop calling those:

In general river raises are really strong and overbets too so you can fold a ton to these. People don't bluff enough on the river and it is a good idea to default to folding in such situations, calling only with very good reasons. A good rule of thumb when facing a raise is "If you don't beat anything from his valuerange, then you must fold".
When you're facing a bet and not a raise, then things become a bit different. It is still fine to fold a lot but keep in mind that people will bluff if you showed clear weakness (as in the hand posted here).
The last thing I want to note is that when you look at graphs for calling situations, it is understandable to be losing. We have odds on the river so even though we will be losing money in the hand overall, calling can still be more profitable than folding.

For me it's a hero call Not sure if I could have made this call. WP IMO

Originally posted by kriko92

Originally posted by YohanN7
It is very dangerous to play using inverted logic. Big bets are for big hands (and big bluffs), but winning poker involves getting more money in with strong hands and bluffing as cheaply as possible. Your gamble is then that your opponent doesn't understand this fundamental fact.

The thought process is actually simple and quite common. "I have a bluff and I want you to fold => bet big to look strong" We're playing nl2 here, expecting sophisticated thought processes from players will not work out very well.

Of course I'm not saying we should just start bluffcatching every time we see a big bet. We still have to think about ranges but if there is a lot of air in villain's range, some medium strenght hands and not that much nuts, seeing a big bet is better for us compared to a smaller one - it makes the weaker valuebets unlikely and doesn't reduce the bluffs.

The villain even should be bluffing much more with the bigger bets, even according to GTO. Should you call more? No, you should call less. This is the mathematics of things. There is no escape from this. It is different only if villain plays with open hole cards one way or another. Then you can exploit.

From the theoretical point of view you are correct. The thing is I believe we can do better than being balanced when playing the lowest limits and I want to exploit people before getting information about the specific player. Which means that we have to use population reads and that is what I was talking about here. Because of the reasons in the previous posts I decided that big bet means unbalanced towards bluffs in this spot and I would call 100% of my bluffcatchers.

Yes, fine, but this is something that should not go as advice. Any advice based on inverted logic (small bet = value, big bet = bluff) is questionable and dangerous because it is expensive any time you are wrong. It is particularly expensive when you fold a strong bluff catcher to a small bet losing the pot with a winning hand. Please don't say that you can call these too very widely. There is another population read in effect: People don't bluff enough at the lower limits. You'd be a pay-off station.