[FoxwoodsFiend]

I said above that I thought villain was going broke either way. That was 3:00 a.m. I think the important point is that IF villain is capable of laying down the K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] then he's going to need just as many bets to confirm he's behind regardless of whether you check-raise or lead the turn.
Scenario 1: You check-raise, he calls. You lead river, he raises (probably), you reraise he folds. 4 bets are made.
Scenario 2: You lead turn. Villain raises you reraise, he calls. You lead river, he (almost certainly) just calls. 4 bets are made.
I think the only real difference between the size of the bets is whether you will bet more leading out on the turn than villain would if you checked, but that's hard to tell.
So I guess my point is if villain's capable of going broke here, he'll go broke regardless of what you do. If he's capable of laying this down, roughly the same amount of money is going in before he's certain he beats.
Still, it's possible I'm wrong. If I am, it would be in how I describe the river action in scenario 2. If villain is raising the river despite the 3-bet on the turn, you get a chance to bust him. I would say that this is more likely than him raising the river in scenario 1 (which he did) AND calling your final raise. Since you would need both of these things in scenario 1 to happen to get in that 5th bet whereas you need the more likely scenario of him putting in a raise on the river in scenario 2 to get the fifth bet there, leading the turn and 3-betting is still better.
I know this is all guesswork...does anybody disagree with my assumptions of which scenario is more likely to get villain to go broke?