About 30 hands on SB. looks like an aggressive set miner. Stats like 10/7.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.25 BB (6 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

saw flop

MP ($33.10)
CO ($24.50)
Button ($17.95)
SB ($25.45)
BB ($29.65)
Hero (UTG) ($29.95)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with 10, 10
Hero bets $1, 2 folds, Button calls $1, SB calls $0.90, 1 fold

Flop: ($3.25) 6, 3, 3 (3 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $2, 1 fold, SB calls $2

Turn: ($7.25) 4 (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $3.50, SB raises to $10.25, Hero raises to $26.95 (All-In), SB calls $12.20 (All-In)

River: ($52.15) A (2 players, 2 all-in)

Total pot: $52.15 | Rake: $2.55

When SB checks the turn I felt that his hand range contained predominantly weak overpairs: 77-99. I think AA-JJ could easily have been raised preflop, been a lead on the flop, a raise on the flop or a lead on the turn. Most 55,44,22 and AK/AQ hands would fold the flop. Since I'm showing fairly unapologetic strength I would have assumed 66 to either lead flop, raise flop or lead turn. While 33 could have slowplayed this way, it could also have bet out. Thus I feel this particular line is taken almost 100% with 77-99 and between 10% and 30% with most other hands that can take it.

Therefore I size my turn bet to be something I think 77-99 would call - something too small for them to fold. I think I can definitely bet for value, but I do also want an element of pot control. I don't mind if this does not become a stack-off hand.

When I get raised I start reassessing the opponents range. This now looks like a committing bet. I revisit the hands that crush me: AA-JJ, 66, 44, 33 - and I just don't think an aggressive set miner who relies on his sets and strong overpairs for profit would play these so passively on his first three post-flop actions. Then I examine my own hand range, and it occurs to me that my bet size seems weak and that I could easily be put on unpaired overs, especially all unpaired hands with two diamonds. I assess my opponents bet size and decides that it was picked to contain fold equity. It's not that all-too-common cocksure small raise that doesn't want you to fold but just wants to bloat the pot.

So I go back to the core of the range I put him on when he checked: 77-99 and ask myself if he would raise that subrange when I show weakness - show myself to have a hand that would like a cheap bluff or a cheap showdown. The other hands in my opponents range that do become more likely when he raises are AK/AQ that sometimes call the flop to see if they hit a pair on the turn, and which in this case responds to my weakness as a semi-bluff.

I suspect he will respond to apparent weakness because in the few hands he has played he has been consistently aggressive.

I consider calling and discard it. If he has 77-99 or AK/AQ and he doesn't improve on the river to beat me he'll fold the river. If I raise the turn he'll likely call 77-99 and fold AK/AQ, which means the raise serves to extract more value from hands I beat and protect my hand against being drawn out on by AK/AQ. I think it can also be interpreted as bluffy making it more likely that he'll call the 77-99 hands that I focus on.

My problem is this: When I played the hand and I thought what I did above, I focused an awful lot on a pretty narrow range of hands. I know that the whole point of hand reading is to be able to put your opponent on a narrow range of hands and make superb plays based on knowing exactly what he has and him not knowing what you have - but I worry if in this case my decision to narrow his range to 77-99 was sound. What's your thoughts on this?