PLO50 J876ds BvB battle, villain line?

From villains perspective:

Preflop okayish passive defend with an :Ax::Qx::Qx: hand. Against you specifically it´s probably too loose.
As a default you might start folding the weakest :Ax::Jx::Jx: rainbow versions.

Otf usually we´d fold a naked top-pair+pocket pair but here are some things going on to consider why we can play this:

- In blinds vs blinds ranges are more loose and we can loose up our defense
- Higher ranked hits increase in value when heads-up and with more loose ranges
- The pair of QQ´s block your range area that has potential broadway hits
- The pair of QQ´s have value as future blockers
- The A♥ blocks your nutflushdraw components
- The A♥ has value as future blocker

Float bluff-betting the turn repping the flush and leveraging for another barrel on blanky river cards.

River bluff-bet aiming to get fold from SDV-hands stronger than QQ´s and eventually lower flushes. I bet 75% too, not full pot (like solver?). It allows me to add more non-nutted flush valuebets (and/or higher bluffing freqs).

I think you both played your hands very well. Can´t see any mistake from anybody.

I think i should have not read comments / spoilers before commenting.

Personally i'm not 100% sure if i'd cbet here vs a reg OOP. I think it's fine though. As played I think i'm folding river, but that might be way to nitty.

I would like to check call flop at least 2 street . You balance your check calling range.

Its hard to maintaine a balanced range on this board texture. Cbeting is also fine, Maybe the best option.
He caps his range with big Bet each street to Axxx Asxsxx . Its bluff or nothing

In general this is good spot to cbet versus active regs. That is simply from range construction. We are supposed to have somewhat tight range open raising but BB can still defend lot wider range in position in HU pot. Which means that high card flop like this we can still cbet quite liberally even being oop. Anyway I am not really big fan of x-c with hand like this that has no showdown value and quite weak draw potential even with those bd stuff.

For villain I actually think flop raise is likely best respond. He blocks ton of stuff creating high fe and also has future blocker value but doesn't really have that much raw equity.

Also question in my mind is whatever nut blocker is that relevant after calling flop and facing turn check. It's not like SB should check nut flush that often and in practice it's even more rare than theory would assume. I would probably check some nuts that heavily block showdown value and unblock draws so prime example could be AAK8hh type hand.

But yeah point being that I think lower flush blocker has more value for BB, e.g. J♥:, T♥:, 9♥:. Also one issue in my mind is that BB hand still have decent showdown value. Sure having pocket decrease chance to improve so maybe it is better to use as bluff but AQ is still going to win fair amount in checked down scenarios.

For BB value range he can definitely go wider for value than just nuts but yeah usually people will go too polarized.

For villain I actually think flop raise is likely best respond

Yes I like raising here too. But in general when bluff-raising it´s better to use hands that have no SDV. In Blinds vs blinds top-pair+second kicker can be good in some checkdowns later on. I am also not raising too aggressively against totally unknown opponents, repping the nutstraight is more costly later on but the nutflushblocker speaks more for raising. In the books from Jeff Hwang there are multiple chapters, why floats usually perform better than bluff-raises from their cost-risk relation especially against straightforward, not frequency driven opponents. I mean in the end it is more important to have solid bluff raising frequencies rather than perfect blockers.

Also question in my mind is whatever nut blocker is that relevant after calling flop and facing turn check. It's not like SB should check nut flush that often and in practice it's even more rare than theory would assume.

If villain balances or tries to exploit the above mentioned floats, he should have nutflushes ott when checking. We also prefer having the nutflush-blocker than other blockers as they make up a bigger part of the flush-ranges that is blocked. Ofc we should prefer to bluff with flushblockers rather than without as we block the total amount of flushes villain has. I think bluffing with blocker rather than without is pretty straightforward, and you need some bluffs here to stay balanced. Blocking a higher rank has more benefit, because the amount of potentially blocked flushes increases (logically everybody prefers high ranked cards over lower ranked cards) ie. So it does not matter a lot if you block a J♥: or T♥: when the purpose is to decrease the likelihood of getting called. From your perspective the second card is not relevant in terms of handstrength when having a flush: It does not matter if you have A♥:2♥: or A♥:J♥:, both is nuts but with the A♥:2♥: you are more likely to get value as higher flushes are more likely to call. We are also not checking behind turn and value-betting the nutflush otr so to save that blocker for the river does not make a lot of sense. This is more important than than the actual combination you want to block and the nutflushblocker is used by solver to make the most aggressive bluffs like bluff raising on a flush card. When raising you risk to get reraised, you have less FE whereas when the turn is a flush and villain 2barrel you max out your FE with the nf-blocker. This is way harder to call than otf where he might have a made hand too that decides to calldown on certain runouts. Finally with top-pair we can check-back too occasionally.