After running a few sims, it seems like QQ is check/shoving some small percent of the time, but the EV of check/calling outperforms check/shoving by close to 1bb with combos that have a diamond in them. This is with the turn betting range that contains AJ around 50% of the time and KJs/QJs around 30% of the time. Stuff like AQ betting sometimes but mostly checking. If we nodelock villain to bet some more Jx and AQ half the time, then PIO starts to check/shove QQ most of the time and KK always.

So it depends a lot on how merged villain is betting on the turn. It might be reasonable to assume that a weaker player who bets half pot on the turn might be more merged than he perhaps should be and he also might choose a bigger sizing with Tx, as weaker players (or players in general) tend to be quite transparent with their sizes.

PIO also chooses to bet QQ most of the time on the turn rather than check, although that might change if we give villain some ATo. Againts a tighter preflop range that doesn't contain AJo or KQo, PIO checks entire range.

Extra valueble info for you guys here: every player profile bets more merged than they should on stab vs check lines, specially recreational profiles.

In fact, from what I've learned studying with H2N and mass database analysis, every player profile almost never comes close to polarizing their ranges correctly when its needed compared to GTO. There is always a lack of air and an addition of middling hands that should be checked, in most lines and spots, but specially for flop and turn spots.

Solid thoughts overall, but I would disagree a little bit with the third point. Whether we should raise all in or not on the turn is not only about whether we have value or a bluff, but it's also about the amount of protection we're getting.

Getting bluffs to fold is not exactly a bad thing, because we make villain fold equity.

So we have to consider the combination of value AND protection before making the decision. A pure value/bluff frame doesn't exactly work on preflop, flop and turn, because equities are dynamic, whereas on the river it's either 0% or 100%.

Thats good point, sir, thx! But i dont see why we should raise OTT vs bluff. Shouldnt we call and let him bluff us? Cause OTT our opponents range is its mostly air\value. So we can comfortably call and make decision OTR. There will be a lot of cards on river, when opponent will bluff us. So we will win a lot more then if we raise OTT vs bluffs. Is my logic wrong somewhere?

If villain specifically has a bluff here, we would prefer calling assuming that villain bluffs the river enough of the time for us to justify letting him realize his equity. If he never bluffs when he misses, let's say, then we'd prefer shoving, obviously.

So yeah, in general we want to keep the bluffs in, but in this situation we also get extra value from Jx by shoving (villain has the opportunity to checkback with Jx on the river). So it's a close spot in theory and depends on various exploitative factors.

And as a sidenote, I'm not exactly sure if we're getting bluffed or not on the river. The way I see it is that our perceived range is really strong after check/calling the turn (Jx and overpairs, basically), so againts a thinking opponent I wouldn't count on him bluffing the optimal amount, cuz it's really not that attractive spot to bluff given how easy it is to call enough on the river with a range of Jx and overpairs. That said, I don't know what this specific NL5 opponent would or would not do.