Thoughts: How about we quit thinking about betting/raising to see: (1) Where we stand, (2) How strong he thinks he is, (3) How much he likes his hand.
Instead, lets start betting/raising for either value (worse calls often enough) or as a
bluff (he folds often enough [semi-
bluff]). We can even do it for protection some of the time, but value/
bluff is the primary reason you will be betting/raising.
Example: Look at the
flop. Lets just say we are
ahead of his betting
range. This automatically makes calling +EV. What if when we
raise he only continues with better hands? Then raising for value is obviously incorrect, as we never have worse hands
call. So a
call becomes the correct play in most cases.
A
raise would be silly, even though we are
ahead of his betting
range. Yes, he might
fold often, and we win the pot. However, he would be folding a lot of hands that we beat. And when he calls, we are now
behind.
I'
m not saying that is the
case here, just a thought. I think your logic, and others in this thread, is flawed. And it's more detrimental to your games than misplaying this one hand (if that's the
case).
Oh, and my thoughts on the hand. Without
reads, I likely
call the
turn, and
fold to most
river bets. Possibly
value bet river if
villain checks. Also, I think your
range for
villain is skewed. What is the likelihood of
villain betting both the
flop, and
turn with 99/
TT? Also remember, villains bluffing frequency here is likely not 0%. He could be 2-barreling with a hand like AK (overs +
Gutshot) or KT (
oesd), plus other hands.