This is one of those situations where only you know.

1. A bluff can be good even if it's immediately money losing if you are under-bluffing in the future and your opponent makes an adjustment to over-call.

2. A bluff can be bad if your opponent is over-calling and you are over-bluffing.

3. A bluff is good if your opponent overfolds.

4. A bluff is neutral if our opponent calls roughly enough to make a bluff 0 EV.

5. A bluff is good up to a point if our opponent is unknown and we need to create a strategy that maximizes our minimum value.

On betsizing, I think it's unequivocally either smaller on the river, so you can value bet two pair, or bigger. If you had a nut hand would you want to win $10 dollars less?

+1 Tyler Forrester r.e. betsizing.

Does the average reg in this pool gets to this river spot substantially tighter than optimal play would suggest? How does this affect his range composition? Do you think the average reg is in this pool is capable of making consistent laydowns with his bluffcatchers? Just a few relavent questions.

Ultimately as Tyler said it's a sliding scale thing which trends from +ev to -ev depending on given assumptions.

Tyler is a billion times better player than me so whatever he said is the gospel but my first thought was that I wouldn't have picked that river to bluff shove since it counterfeits our most likely two pair we would have raised for value on the flop. When he calls the turn it seems face up that he has a strong J (or better), which would block the more unlikely J6 and J7 combos. Which leaves us representing almost solely 89 and maybe the sets but I would have 3b 77 at least. A call with a J is maybe questionable even still but maybe he had a read on your bluffing tendencies