Limit theory question: optimal bluffing frequency ?

I like to see the forum responding and participating in limit discussions more and more: it's encouraging to see that not everyone is set-mining the cadillac of poker This is a question that doesn't probably have, like everything in poker, a definitive answer (or an answer that has us calculating odds for 5 minutes in our head before acting).

Scenario: LHE .50/1 6 max. We have a good TAGish (but very aggro) image and the following hand takes place against average, but not solid players (too loose in the blinds and somewhat loose/bad postflop).

All fold to hero who is in the CO with KQs. We raise, SB and BB call.

Flop (3BB) is
TT3s rainbow
SB/BB checks, we c-bet, BB calls.

Since opponent is loose preflop, some T and 3 are in his range, but since he is loose postflop, I expect him to peel almost ATC.

Turn is Js (4BB).
BB checks again, we bet due to us having now many outs (overs + str8 + flush) , but we're still rooting for him to fold. BB calls, indicating to us that he does in fact have a hand afterall, but not enough to c/r us with, wich leads me to paired 3 and paired J, underpair, or Ax. We are not yet in deep doodoo.

River is a 2 (6BB), wich is a complete brick.
BB checks. Now, if we make the calc, if we bet here, opponent is layed down 7:1 odds on his probable 3 and maybe J to be good, so we need him to fold his crappy 3x or 44 1 time out of six for us to show a profit.

But, this is discounting the times he is slowplaying (rare, but likely), the times he has J and is probably not folding it or the times he has AXs and decides it's good for SD. While he is having crap a lot here, against our image, can we expect him to fold being given such odds ? Such scenarios recurrently happen in TOP and David seems pretty confident that this is a good spot to bluff since that 2 doesn't seem to help us and doesn't complete any draw, thus opponent must derive we were strong.

I find that:
a) Opponents now don't think like that and that scare cards might be more optimal to bluff (the Ace for example)
b) If the pot were smaller, our bluff might have more chances to be +EV due to bad players never folding anything nowdays in pots > 5BB.

More interesting scenario:

BTN is thinking, weak-tight, but straightforward opponent (call/bet = I have something). We have 98s in the CO. We raise trying to steal, BTN calls, SB folds, BB calls.

Flop (3 1/2BB) is 67Q with two spades and a club.
BB checks, hero bets, BTN calls, BB calls. (BTW, betting here is bad, I know, c/r better)

Turn (5BB) 8 of clubs.
BB checks, Hero checks, BTN bets. BB calls, Hero raises, BTN calls, BB folds.

River (9BB) K of clubs.
Hero ? Considering we have shown strength, the scary nature of the card and the size of the pot, would this be a good spot to bluff ? Because I think the larger the pot, the less # of times the bluff needs to work, but the more your opponent is SD bound for a single bet. (In this example, villain needs to fold his Q,8,6,7 once every ten times for it to be profitable).

What I'm really getting at is this: how do you find your optimal bluffing frequency against different players ? In board/draw games, you can rely on game theory to bluff the number of times required by pot odds, but in a community card game such as HE, it becomes difficult to do so as the card that might fall (and that you chose for your bluff trigger) can help your villain's hand. Do you rely on pot odds solely ? How do you pick a good spot to bluff ? How do you pick a good opponent to bluff ?

Discuss.

I've stopped thinking in terms of bluffing frequencies, and instead think in terms of "number of hands my opponent will fold that beat me" versus "size of pot and cost to bluff," if that makes sense.

This is why I'm much more likely to bet J-high on the river in position than a pocket pair of deuces, if I believe there are Q- and K-high hands my opponent will find himself at the river with.

In my experience, people fold very rarely. Trying to get opponents to fold ace-high is difficult, let alone any pair. I do most of my bluffing when I'm on a steal with low cards. This probably gives me a fairly wild image since I'm 3-barreling stuff like T7o unimproved, heh.

It makes sense, imho, more than a "fixed" bluffing/calling frequency in today's games. Note that by fixed, I don't mean "we should bluff every 10 hands" but a more conservative approach that theorizes that villain will almost never look us up with 3rd pair with an A on board (something the villains in TOP sometimes do). Optimal bluffing frequency against most villain is thus very low and should be reserved for special occasions such as planned steals as you noted.

People are more agressive now and they fold less, so it makes sense that optimal bluffing frequency should be dictacted a lot more by hand reading and weighting of villain's range against action than pot odds alone.

Anyway, David doesn't give any mathematical or empirical way of finding optimal bluffing frequency other than pot odds on the end + game theory and we all know that no matter what, these are bound to fail if facing level zero opponents who don't fold anything. It's not a meta-bluffing frequency (how should I bluff in an entire session) it's more of a "if I bluff x times on the end against an opponent who will fold x times, bluffing frequency leaves us indifferent and I show a profit from his mistakes".