I've been at this table for sometime now and the villian who's in the BB has been fairly passive. Haven't really seen him be that active. I'm in the SB with Kc Qc and there's one limper. I make it $2.50 and he 3-bets to $7.50. I call and it's heads up. Flop is ace high with two rags, two suited.

I check, BB leads for about 1/2 the pot. Smells weak to me. Blufftastic, or spewfest?

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.50 BB (9 handed)Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

(Format: FlopTurnRiver)
UTG ($10.20)
UTG+1 ($26.05)
MP1 ($52.55)
MP2 ($28.60)
MP3 ($12.85)
CO ($122.55)
Button ($49.75)
Hero ($53.40)
BB ($49.70)

Preflop: Hero is SB with Q,K.
3 folds, MP2 calls $0.50, 3 folds, Hero raises to $2.5, BB raises to $7.5, MP2 folds, Hero calls $5.

Flop: ($15.50) 7, A, 2 (2 players)
Hero checks, BB bets $8, Hero raises to $22

I think this is a fold pre, I know we are getting 2:1 but that is about the same as our equity against a range of TT+ and AQ+. If you take into consideration that we are OOP it doesn't seem like a bad fold to me.

On the flop, there are 39 hand combinations (AQ, AK, AA) in that range that connect with the flop and only 16 that don't (KK, QQ, JJ, TT). Since you are risking $22 to win $23.50 you need at approximately as many hand combinations in his range that he will fold out to a check raise as will call.

Since there are way more that will call/raise you than there are that will fold, it is a bad bet.

Im not 100% directing this at you, but in general: I think one big problem I see with FR players is they are playing a short-handed game. In the specific example you say and do contradictory things:

1) Villain is passive, and he's 3-betting you.. this isnt passive. You definitely don't want to be playing an easily dominated hand like KQ against a passive player that just woke up. You really want to be playing pairs and suited connetors where you can win a big pot against a guy that cant let go of his big hands. If the Flop came K22 how many bets are you losing to AA or AK or KK?

2) Neither of you are deep enough to be playing a 3-bet pot preflop.

3) If he's passive, why do you think you can steal it from him when he's come out betting?

4) I think if you want to bluff this, its better to call here and then bluff the turn. Its a relatively dry board. He's not folding AK and he may not fold KK. There is really no value, for instance, to raise here with AK, you'd be in a WA/WB situation. If he's smart, he might realize that, and call you down with kings or queens.

Edit: I wanted to expand on my original point, i forgot to do that first time around. Full ring really requires a lot more discipline (as in sitting on your has discipline, 6-max requires different disciplines) than a lot of FR have. I see all of these regs with AFs of 6, 7, 8, up to 11... I know that being aggressive is better than being passive, but a lot of these people are just spewing chips. Now, im not saying thats what you're doing, OP, but if you steal 20 raised, heads up pots at $50 NL FR, and then bluff off your stack to a TAG, you've won $35 and lost $50... its not really a winning situation.

Its pretty spewy, like the others have said calling a 3 bet oop with KQ vs a passive villian that just woke up is -ev

Yeah like others have said this is a definite fold PF.

Can't disagree, preflop call OOP vs a tight player is bad. My follow-up question is this, doesn't that continuation bet look scared? He bets half the pot on an ace high flop. That to me looks weak and was the single reason I decided to bluff. What do you guys think?

I dont think it looks that weak. Lots of people c-bet smaller in 3-bet pots and plus without seeing what his standard c-bet is there isnt much that can determined from his 1/2 pot bet imo.

As for the hand I would fold preflop aswell and find a better spot to bluff. KQ is just a really bad hand to bluff with here. When we are calling we are pretty much stone dead and since we have a K and a Q it makes it much less likely for him to have KK or QQ and more likely that he hit the A. If I was gonna bluff here Id much rather have something like 87 where we probably have 5 outs if called or even something like 98ss where we would have a backdoor straight flush draw.

don't like your line here at all... I fold here to the BB as your out of position and at best your even money against JJ. I check fold the flop also, I don't see him folding here to your raise given the stakes!

Mmm, I disagree. Tighter players generally c-bet larger amounts. They're usually the ones making big bets to protect big hands. They see those two diamonds and assume I'm on a flush draw and have to bet me out of the hand. At least that's my experience.

At the time I knew I was making a loose call and intended to check fold the flop. But then he bet 1/2 and to me I really felt he was scared of that ace. Knowing he was tight I thought he was a good candidate to be bluffed. And I did make the initial raise preflop and called his 3-bet so he's probably giving me credit for some kind of hand. Check raises are generally strong moves too, so I felt I had made a few decisions that would sell me having at least an ace here.

Either way, good or bad, it worked out. He time banked for about 25 seconds and folded. Of course in the future I will fold the hand preflop.

I think If you want to turn a check-raise like this into a play that is +$EV you need a bit more information. Have we seen him make weak continuation bets and then fold to a re-raise in the past, for example?

If i 3-bet with AA and I flop top set, I will, of course, level you(not you, but anyone im playing against) with a weak lead c-bet, so that you'll go 'oh, he obv has kings and is scared, im arrr innn'.

Maybe he's not on that level, but thats one of the things I enjoy to do quite often.

That's true. If he had AA then he's dominating that flop and probably makes exactly this size bet on the flop to lure people in. Guess it was a risky hand by me on all levels.

It's kind of hard for anyone to comment on a flop check/raise bluff without having extensive knowledge of how the player plays, i mean, there are general tendencies that certains of players have such as leading weak with a bluff or a draw, but when he bets half pot we really don't know what that means so it's hard to comment on the bluff.

That said, i don't mind it at all, given how you played the hand you look very strong here and almost definitely fold out any lower pairs, there's only 3 aces in the deck for him to have here, so i think this is ok.