Ok I think the fact that you went and wrote out the ranges etc is great but I here's what I think.
Preflop I'm going to assume he's flatting with AK and pairs QQ below. He's a weak tight pansy and the pot is already large when it gets around to him, he's afraid to re-raise and have to stack off pre without AA/KK. This is how I think this player would think, given the information we have thus far so I'm going to go with it. If he was aggressive at all preflop, we could simply take these out of his calling range and add them to his 3bet range.
Ok now, what range of hands is he calling my c-bet with?
Well he could be with a number of hands. Since he's tight he seems to know at least something about poker - ie: c-betting is common from someone who raised pre but it's also hard to make a hand. So he's likely peeling the flop with a fairly wide range relative to the strength of my hand - mostly pairs or any ace of course. He may think his pair of 8's or 9's are still good and that I will shut down on the turn if I missed the flop.
So obviously he'll call a c-bet with hands that have us beat:
AK, 55, 77 (we assume AA is not in his range because he would have 3-bet preflop based on our assumption)
However he'll also likely call 1 street with alot of hands that we either chop or are well ahead of:
AT+,88+ (and maybe a SC for the straight draw but it's probably somewhat unlikely so I'll just ignore it for simplicity)
I put 88+ which to be honest we don't really have perfect information on whether he calls with any pair worse than an ace or not, but if he does - HE IS LIKELY FOLDING THESE HANDS TO A TURN BARREL - because I'm repping an Ace or better basically. I don't think he'll call down the mid pairs in his range to the river that may have called one street so far. He'll likely shut down as a turn bet basically sets up stacking off on the river.
The rest of the hands that he called preflop with will of course fold to the c-bet based on the assumption that he's not tricky and floating us with air, though he could be. So I imagine at least a few combo's of weird stuff could be in his range by the turn, though I won't get value from them either if I bet. And if he bet's the river he may have some of this junk in his betting range.
Which brings up my point of checking back the turn - we want to keep the ENTIRE c-bet calling range in there till the river. The board is dry so we can't be too concered about being drawn out on because I'm assuming he doesn't have much raggy junk in his range, thus there's no real need to 'protect' or hand. Against OTHER villains betting here is great.
We'll find out if we're beat when we go to v-bet the river as a C/R is basically never a bluff here. So if we bet the turn we basically commit ourselves on the river and likely will not get called for stacks unless we are beat - thus the reason for pot control. My assumption is this player will not stack off with a worse hand often enough to make trying to get it in profitable, so why are we setting up a river shove when it's likely -EV?
Now I've checked the turn, and in doing so, I've under-repped my hand so I can attempt to get value from many hands in his range that would shut down to a turn barrel, but may call a river bet after sensing weakness from my turn check. He may take Ax completely out of MY range, so he may think whatever pair lower than an ace that he called one street with is good - thus more combo's for me to get value out of with 2 streets of betting, which I would not have accomplished by betting again on the turn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjsaust
as you'll see there are still a LOT of hands in his range you're ahead of that he would have called flop with.
This is exactly my point and is even more a reason to not bet the turn - because he likely isn't continuing to a 2barrel without a narrower range than his range he called the first street with. So if I check back the turn, I keep his entire range he called a bet with on the flop with on to the river, where I can expect to exctract value from hands like TT or JJ, weaker aces etc - hands that I felt would not have called a 2-barrel. 2-barreling is basically setting up committment to stack off on the river against a range that has will have greater equity than us.
