To answer spenda's question, I think we can often choose larger- or smaller-than-normal bet-sizing when villain is likely to overvalue medium strength hands. Here, villain is 30/6 over 50 hands. The most obvious bet-size manipulation attempt is the river. But the flop bet is slightly larger than average and turn is slightly smaller, intentionally. IDK if I should be showing the results or not, so I put them in white. Initial raise is a bit loose for me, but table was extremely nitty.

$0.25/$0.5 No Limit Holdem
9 players
Converted at weaktight.com

Stacks:
UTG ($50.00)
UTG 1 ($15.00)
Hero (MP1) ($50.75)
MP2 ($10.00)
MP3 ($10.00)
CO ($77.20)
BTN ($84.15)
SB ($43.55)
BB ($10.50)

Pre-flop: ($0.75, 9 players) Hero is MP1
2 folds, Hero raises to $1.75, 2 folds, CO calls $1.75, 1 fold, SB calls $1.50, 1 fold

Flop: ($5.75, 3 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $4, CO calls $4, SB folds

I tried to bet here like I was worried about the flush draw instead of having it.

Turn: ($13.75, 2 players)
Hero bets $5, CO calls $5

Now I'm trying to act weak.

River: ($23.75, 2 players)
Hero bets $5, CO calls $5

The river bet is tiny compared to how I would normally value bet the river. What I think is true is that villain has mostly mediocre hands, but maybe 15% of the time got there with a flush. I'm hoping that if I bet small, he'll raise me with a flush. Also, there's a better chance to get value out of the worst part of his range. If I didn't think he was capable of shoving a flush over the top, I would have value bet more.

Final Pot: $33.75
Hero shows: As Ts
CO shows: Qd 8d

Hero wins $32.10 ( won $16.35 )
SB lost -$1.75
CO lost -$15.75