Question about a very strong player's hand

[Yerma]

Hi, I have a question about a strong player's hand from a 40-80 game. Now, I read a Ray Zee response in this forum a few days ago that led me to narrow down exactly what this player must have had, but I need some further explanation!!

Here is a link to Ray Zee's post:
Ray Zee's post

In a somewhat similar situation, Ray Zee said that a world class player would not check a real hand on the turn, he has to bet. But...I don't understand why?

40-80, 10 handed. Two good players in the cutoff and in the small blind. CO posts.

MP open raises. CO 3-bets. SB cold calls. BB and MP call.

My interpretation of the small blind's bet:
A sign of strength, but not likely AA or a premium pocket pair better than JJ.

Flop is 669 rainbow. SB bets, BB folds. MP calls. CO folds (getting 14:1!).

My interpretation of the small blind's bet:
This looks like a feeler bet from TT or JJ, or a bet with 99 looking to get excess action. He has to know that a semi-bluff isn't very likely to work, so he should have a made hand here.

Turn is Ace, total rainbow. Check-check.

My interpretation based on Ray Zee's comment:
If he had 99, he would likely continue to bet here. He should have almost exactly TT or JJ and fears the Ace.

My interpretation of MP's play:
Appearing to confirm that he can't have AQ. He may have KQ, or TT or JJ himself.

River is a Jack. Check-bet-call.

My interpretation of SB's play:
He must have TT here. I don't think he would have taken a flop with 88 (would he have?).

For the results oriented, SB indeed turned over TT. MP turned over JJ.

Here is my question: Pretend SB actually had 99 for the flopped boat. If you believe Ray Zee, he's going to bet the turn because he is a strong player. I don't see why? If you bet and MP has something like KQs or KJs, he just folds and you lose a bet those times he hits an overcard on the river. If you bet and MP has an Ace, he's not likely going to raise you, fearing all the strength SB has shown so far, but he would likely bet if you check. A c/r looks *very* superior to me in this spot. What's more, I was able to narrow his holding down to exactly TT or JJ after he checks the turn, because according to Ray Zee, he can't have a 6 or 99. So, doesn't this also make the very strong player super-predictable those times he doesn't have the virtual nuts?

And so, I don't understand one bit why strong and world class players play this way, or how Ray Zee can make this comment with that sort of confidence. Help please!!!

[Punker]

I think two things about this post:

[ QUOTE ]
If you bet and MP has an Ace, he's not likely going to raise you

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this isn't true. If that MP has the expected AK/AQ, he will be raising most of the time.

and the fact that you have to bet the turn with your monster to protect all the other times that you are trying to power through a TT here. You're going to have a TT here way more often than a 99, so you have to bet the 99s so that people will respect that possibility when you have TT.

Of course, you can start checkraising the turn with your TTs as well. But this exposes you to extra risk.

[rigoletto]

You forget the other side of the coin: a good player will also bet with other than the strongest hands in these situations. By betting outright with your really strong hand, your bets gain Shania. Besides this, Punker is right: players will raise an A here and some will even try to bluff raise with next to nothing when the A falls. Finally: a good player will vary his play and not bet out in a few situations.

I also think you are falling into the trap of "overcorrect analysis" (OA). There is a tendency on this board to always assume your opponents will play correctly. 'he's not likely going to raise you, fearing all the strength SB has shown so far ' falls in this category as does often seen statements like: 'nobody folds here, the pot is to big', 'any sensible player would...' or 'only better hands will call you here'. This leads people to not take advantage of the mediocre players out there.

There is a very simple paradigm underlying this line of play: you make money from your opponents mistakes and when you don't bet, they can rarely make one (inducing later mistakes by not betting can rarely make up for this except against the best of opponents).