Prob not balanced bet size wise on this river which might be a leak.
Villain should only value raise QQ+, but even those might just be a call if played like this since hero has JJ+ in spot also.

Tend to bet Jx sometimes, x/c sometimes.

Prob don't have a x/r range here since I wanna bet and get value from a big part of his range that often check behinds. Villain taking this line with QQ+ seems weird.

In a vacuüm, it seems to me like a great exploitative adjustment to include this small river betsizing. However, since villain is a good REG, he will make adjustments of his own to counterexploit it.

Personally, I'm trying to incorporate different betsizing in spots like yours in an as balanced as feasible manner. I am not yet sure how effective this is, yet Ill expound on this (intuitive) philosophy.

When you play a fixed strategy, villain can counteradjust in a singular way, having only to be worried to be confronted by one betsizing. He can compose his ranges in a way to prevent exploitation basically.

For example, were he in a river situation after betting flop and turn to check river, where he knows villain will bet balanced with the appropriate amount of value and blufs for 75% pot. Then its okay for Hero to have a distributiion of hands of give ups (his air) and enough blufcatchers to prevent villain from overbluffing.

Then, what if villain adds a 10% pot sizing too. Obviously the blufcatchers have an easy call, but a big amount of his range (the give ups) are so weak that its extremely tough to defend versus this sizing.

What I'm getting at is that Hero his range is constructed in a way to defend vs 75% bets, not the smaller ones.

If villain were to continously implement this new 10% strategy, Hero can make effective re adjustments to neglect the villains benefits.

But what if villain takes resort to both betsizings, in a certain ratio? Intuitively it seems to me that it is extremely hard for Hero to counter this "whole" betting strategy effectively, without having to rethink his entire postflop strategy.

I'm not yet sure in what situations this is the most and or least effective, but the first thing that comes to mind is versus 4bets. If villain 4bets polariseert and then checks flop, he will have a bunch of air, with low equity. So he might aim to defend like 60% versus bets vs missed cbets. But what if Hero sometimes bets a small size and sometimes bigger? This doesn't change the distributiion in villains checking range. So to counter such a strategy, he must rethink his entire 4bet strategy, otherwise he leaves himself open to exploitation without being able to readjust effectively.

Yeah prob comes down to how often villain is bluff catching with AQ+ in this spot

Given that he reps nothing (little FE on riverraises) and villain is valuebetting river as wide as JTs, I don't see why checking back turn with a 0-25% frequency or so with AA-QQ to raise river all-in on a bunch of rivers is a mistake at all. Actually, its probably better than auto-pilot barrelling 100% of the time.

Assuming most regs know the "standard" Ev compared optimal play, it might be the ones that do things entirely different that will prevail. I dont play this limit.