Yes, I would still not advocate bet/folding the turn. My decision is not based on either the fact that villain bet the turn or 3 barreled.

The thing is this... Preflop is even a bit sketchy against this guy. We will be playing OOP against such a very tight range. We will be missing the flop a fair amount of the time, and we will have a hard time bluffing this villain, as a result of his right range. Also, because his value range is so narrow we aren't likely to get too much money in when we are ahead. For example I don't expect him to put in 2-3 streets worth with AQ/AJ/KK on Axx board, and I don't expect him to have KQ/KJ in his range on Kxx boards. So even preflop is a bit sketchy, and given we are OOP I wouldn't terribly hate a fold; however, a call is still probably +EV and would likely call myself.

On the flop, the reason I say he doesn't cbet JJ or KK all that often really falls on the same reasoning I advocate hero in not betting the turn. What would a bet with JJ/KK in villain's spot on the flop really accomplish? Worse hands likely do not call, so he wouldn't be getting value (as I'm not check/calling 99/TT/JJ on this flop). And he doesn't really need to bluff because he beats all the other hands (with KK he beats our KK/JJ/TT/99), and doesn't hate giving those hands a free card because of the relatively little chance of them catching their 2 outer. So since he can't bet for value and expect to be called by worse, and he can't bluff and fold out many better hands, and he is still ahead of the majority of our range with KK/JJ, then he should likely check behind and turn his hand into a bluff-catcher, or valuebet thinly on the later streets.

However, this is different for the weaker part of his range. If villain has a hand like 77/88, I would be more inclined to cbet this flop. It would obviously not be for value as we would never get a call from worse (barring an unlikely flush draw). But he could fold out some better hands, such as 88-JJ (24 combos). So a bet with 88 would be a bluff, and he could also barrel and expect us to fold AJ/AK some % of the time. So I would expect him to bet this board with a large % of the weaker part of his range (whether that be air or hands that he is likely behind with).

So on the flop, I do think hero has enough equity to make a call, as long as we don't expect villain to bluff us on the following streets very often (in which case if he does we should begin to call his future street bets more often with a wider range, or just fold the flop).

If for instance villain's range is 88+, AQ+ preflop, which isn't a terrible assumption. And he bets his nut hands, and the weaker part of his range on this flop (88-99, QQ, AQ, AK, AA), and checks back the rest (TT, JJ, KK), then on the flop we have 60% equity against his cbetting range. Since we only need 27% equity to have a Breakeven call (350/1275), then we should call. Obviously if he has a wider range, or is cbetting his entire range, then a call in this situation becomes more +EV.

Now if we continue with our assumption that he bets with the range I assigned (88-99, QQ, AQ, AK, AA), then as soon as the turn drops we are no longer ahead of his range. We only have 43% equity now. Also given the fact that if we bet he only calls with a hand that either beats us or ties us (he would fold 99, and maybe AK some % of the time), then we can't bet for value. So we check to him, and he makes his decision.

His decision will obviously affect his range. We can assume again that he will bet his best hands, but he may no longer bet his weakest hands as he doesn't believe we will fold. So let's say he bets AA/QQ/AQ/88 when we check the turn, and he checks back AK/99 for separate reasons (99 being he knows he's behind and doesn't believe you will fold so he gives up on the pot. AK because he thinks he might still be ahead, but isn't sure so he doesn't want to build the pot more. [aka pot control]). Well when he bets the turn we obviously do not have the equity to make a call, so the only options are to raise and fold. A raise for value is obviously out of the question because in order to raise for value you need >50% equity against the range of hands he calls the raise with, and that is not even close to the case here. You could consider raising as a bluff if he folds enough of his betting range for the bluff to be profitable; however, that is also not the case here. So a fold becomes our only option.

Quote Originally Posted by tyrn
The point I was trying to make was that on the turn, we're given no information to narrow his range from what it is PF.
This is incorrect as I proved above. Do you see how even though we don't bet at him, and we play this passively, we are still able to alter his range? He isn't always going to bet with 100% of his range. He is going to check back some % of his hands, and bet the other %, which inevitably allows us to determine using logic and assumptions which portion of his main range he is doing which with. Which can then narrow his range based on the actual action he takes.