understood that this is a particularly nasty/difficult topic
1) thinly v-betting means we expect him to have both worse AND better hands that will call us.
2) if we thinly v-bet the turn, its because we expect all hands like 7x are still going to call us. We also expect JJ+ to call us as well (obv).
3) we might be able to thinly v-bet the turn with TT here, but then on the river, we can't get value from anything worse BUT we might be able to fold out better hands. So now we'd bluff.
hopefully that clarifies!
(Quick note- one of my students crunched some numbers and found that it probably is too thin to v-bet TT on this turn. But, in his analysis, he concluded that its actually still possibly an ok bluff on the turn, provided that we can move him off things on 3 streets)
One last thing-- We need to consider hands both 1 street at a time AND in the context of 3 streets. So, I don't love the idea of making a bad turn bluff (or v-bet) with the intention of making a good river bluff. However, it's also bad to ignore the added value that making a good river bluff adds to our hand. Basically, I'd like to have some kind of equity/value on the turn to go into a 3-barrel bluff type situation.
That works a bit better, but I'm still a little uncomfortable with a particular aspect, specifically the turn "thin value" even if we have, for example, TT or JJ.
I believe that the idea of assessing streets independently doesn't really work. The standard way of analysing multi-street action is via a tree-diagram based EV calculation, summing all paths to give a final result. Here are basically the four possible paths in this hand, from the turn, where we bet the turn with the intention of shoving the river:
1) We bet the turn, he folds, we win $X
2) We bet the turn, he shoves (we fold), we loose $(X + our turn bet)
3) We bet the turn, he calls. We shove the river, he folds. We win $Y.
4)We bet the turn, he calls. We shove the river, he calls. We win $(Y+ our riverbet) 5% of the time (when we hit our set), and loose $(Y + our riverbet) 95% of the time.
Each of the scenarios 1), 2), 3) and 4), have an EV: EV1, EV2, EV3, EV4. and they each occur a particular fraction of the time: %1, %2, %3, %4., where
(%1) + (%2) + (%3) + (%4) = 100%
Our Total EV = (EV1)*(%1) + (EV2)*(%2) + (EV3)*(%3) + (EV4)*(%4) = The weighted sum of the EV of all paths
The important thing to take away from this is that we only see a river in scenario 4), when our river shove is called. We only win when we hit our set.
So my point is really that value is about showdown. If we only win when we hit our set at showdown, it doesn't matter if his range was behind us OTT: Our river line negates the "turn value", and it won't make a difference to the EV of the play if we have 88 or JJ.
For me, the example hand you posted, where we have AA on KQ4, is different to the video hand in this critical way: we will often see a showdown that we will win vs a large number of hands in villain's flop calling range that are behind us on the flop, making the valuebet valid, and showdown-oriented. The Jack is a crappy card OTT, and we may have to re-evaluate our line, but most turn/rivers don't force us to do this. In the video hand, however, we never see a showdown against a hand we were ahead of on the turn.
Thanks for taking such an interest in this point, I've been brought up on your vids, so it was great to have a response from you :-)