I'm curious as to why you think a near three-quarter sized bet on the turn from villain is weak? It just seems like a reasonably normal size to use here as a default.

For the bluff itself I think you are jamming a lot of money into a situation where you're at a range disadvantage overall and doing it with a hand that just doesn't win often enough and doesn't block any of his sets or two pair. Standard fold methinks.

:-)

I didn't say you shouldn't have a raising range, though, I said the hand you had was a bad one to raise with due the situation.

Even if he does only pot with his two pair plus, the rest of his range contains twelve over-pair combos, flush draws with pairs, flush draws with gutters and numerous top pairs.

Of course if you had a read he would fold all those, nh. I'm not that good at reading.

pure call turn you can raise river you're IP you don't need a raising range plus people c/r super tight and bet most draws. if I did have a raising range it would be pair draw hands 76d 65d so we can dominate his nutflush draws which call

You don’t have much for value here. Q9s and 99 are frequent 3bets, even 100% in many range constructions. 66 Likely does some 3betting too so you don’t have full frequencies of any of the nutted combos while villain can have all of them.

So I think you only have a couple of value combos here and you have higher equity bluffs to choose from. Your draw only has 3 clean outs because of KJdd I i think you have a relatively easy turn fold.

Im also more in the fold turn camp. But the question if we should have a jammingrange at all OTT isinteresting. From a theory pov villain is highly polarized and though we shouldnt have a raising range at all (right?). But if so, i guess it should be 99/Q9s for value execlusively as they cooler 66 or block topset/kiddleset (and have decent outs vs 66) We could balance these 6 combos with JTs and the NFD i guess (even if we add KdJd we are already overbluffing).