Quote Originally Posted by Genitruc
It also reminds me of one of Strassa's recent posts where he 3 barrels with 2nd pair HU vs Ivey. He got flamed a lot for it, but defended his play (successfully imo) by stating that, in the long run, it makes it virtually impossible to put him on a hand, since he's no longer either betting a monster or a bluff, which is kind of what you've done with your range by playing AJ this way here.
That's something I do in limit. I try to make a lot of really marginal value bets partially to induce loose calls later on, but with the added benefit of occasionally getting called by a worse hand if an opponent tries to make a "good" call. It's like advertising with a bluff, but occasionally being awarded with the pot anyways.

Anyways, the problem in thinking that a bet might acheive both of these objectives (folding a better hand, or getting called by something worse) is that if his opponent (who we will assume is reasonably intelligent) thinks there's a good enough chance that T-T is good here to justify a call, there's obviously a better chance that Q-Q is good, since Q-Q is ahead of a larger range, so it would make absolutely no sense to fold Q-Q. And if he thinks a fold of Q-Q would be the right play, it would be completely inconsistent for him to call with T-T.

So, unless his opponent is completely whimsical and irrational, it will either work as a bluff or as a value bet, but it doesn't make sense to think it could serve as both.

Of course, when you don't know what your opponent is thinking, then you might get either outcome (which I assume is what you mean here), but in this case, you're mostly just taking a pure gamble on how the player is thinking at a particular moment. That is, what you mean by, "He might fold a better hand or call with something worse," is, "I have no idea why I'm making this play."