I don't even know where to begin, so I'll just start at the top, I guess:
5% raise cbet tells a shitload about postflop play, as does 25 agg% (quite low presuming this is the HEM stat).
So how often
does he fold to c-bets? I don't see Chuck telling us, and I certainly don't think you can claim that you know that based on how often he raised. This is really the key point in all of this: You give him a very tight range based on stats that do not help us much in discerning what his range is in this spot. He raises 5% of c-bets? So what? He didn't raise the c-bet, so unless he has an infinite flop aggression factor, that doesn't tell us how often he
calls.
Now, the most blatant misunderstanding in much of the rest of what you wrote is this:
12 combos of draws =/= 12 combo draws. The only one talking about combo draws is you, and the reason I mentioned specifically 7h6h is because you said he "can't" have a draw, and I just wanted to show that not only can he have a draw, he can have a pretty big one. My argument of calling does not hinge on him easily having a combo draw. More on that further down.
Making assumptions about a "standard TAG" on the postflop stats given is a hell of a lot more solid than making random assumptions about how this player is a LAG postflop because you want to justify why you should be shoving in this spot. You're trying to paint the picture of a person who is floating wide in a 3 way pot and then hitting the magic combo draw card and then raising in position even tho he probably doesn't raise any draws on the flop or is taking the most bizzare line possible with an overpair.
It's like looking into the eyes of a grizzly bear and pointing out to your terrified companion that you better be careful of the depression in the ground in front of you because you might twist an ankle if you were to step into it. Hand reading is about looking for the obvious and things that tend to be typical of a given player type as well as the things that are consistent with a given line instead of trying to justify a position you already want to believe (ie. that one should never fold top 2 here).
What the hell?
You may score points with the debate team for those paragraphs, but you fail to impress me. Give me a break.
Why do we think that villain is likely to flat overpairs preflop (top 5% is 88+,AJs+,KQs,AKo, so even if you add light 3Bing w/ scs or whatnot it is still a pretty wide range of value hands)? Why do we think that villain would then flat flop with the overpair and choose to raise turn - how can you justify such an odd line?
I don't think it's likely. I think it's possible.
Skipping the rest of this; I think we've successfully covered the difference between combo draws and combos of draws by now.
Finally, i think you have to address the issue of a 3 way pot and how that influences peeling range (i'd argue it tightens it up, since it is much harder to float when you have no idea what the guy to act is going to do) as well as how it impacts on the line and how you think he is playing the various types of hands that we beat/crush.
After this, you go back to talking about combo draws again, so I'll just focus on this and address Zach's points while I'm at it:
First thing first, though: Tightens his peeling range up from
what? I don't know what his fold-to-flop-cbet% is. And that's the key point here: we don't know how loose he is on the flop.
Zach says that we (I assume he's talking about me) might be projecting my own style of play onto our opponent. But I'm not - no really, I'm not.
I'm saying, and this is my entire argument in a nutshell, that if you want to fold top-two getting 2:1 (or whatever it is) on the turn, you have to be really, really sure that your opponent cannot be doing it with weaker or as a bluff. Like, completely convinced. And with the one-line description given about villain, you can absolutely not be convinced of anything like that. No way. The reason I bring up that his preflop stats mirror mine is specifically to point that out: That he's a preflop nit and doesn't raise a lot of flops (I'm at about 11%, for comparison) doesn't translate into postflop tightness.
Now, as for who's guilty of assuming that villain plays like ourself, I'd argue that it's not me. I don't need him to play like me in order to make folding wrong. I just need to show that we can't know that he never bluffs, and his stats are certainly not indicative of this.
Is this a bad turn to bluff, in your opinion? Because we have several respectable player who talk about folding a SET on this turn! It's clearly a great turn to bluff! I think this is a great spot to do this with 7s6s, for instance. No combo draw needed.
But, ah, I may not be allowed to assume that our opponent is smart enough to realize that this is a good turn to bluff and be doing some advanced float. Sure. But I have to be able to take one of two routes:
1. Villain is good. In that case, we can't fold.
2. Villain is bad. In that case, how can you tell me he can't show up on the turn with weird hands? Your entire argument is that it "doesn't make sense" for him to have certain hands, and then we have to move villain back up to #1: good player. Otherwise what makes sense to us doesn't matter.
So, to just make sure to drive the point home one last time:
If we want to make a fold with top two on the turn getting 2:1, we need to be almost completely certain that villain would never, ever, bluff or think he has the best hand when he doesn't. With the limited read given on this guy, I claim that we can't possibly know that and we really can't fold. If I look through my database of people with stats roughly matching his, I don't think I'd find a fold versus any of them.