TT OOP vs unknown rogue

Hm...
HH1 - I think we're 4betting like 100% of the time here.
Actual hand - I think we're 4betting as well if we cold 4bet 97s pre. If you think villain range is super strong because your perceived range is super strong opening in bb, then I guess we only play for set mine value oop.

On the turn, it's either fold or call. This sizing is interesting. His value hands are like QK, QJ, AQ, KK, AA, A4, and we beat random bluffs. The thing is our hand is really face up.
Vs some villain, we can call turn then fold river knowing that they never bluff river.
Vs some super aggro spewy villain, they still ship river for less than 1/3 psb left with air.

Come to think of it, maybe folding flop is best(yes I'm a nit). Yes we have TT but can we really bluff catch multiple streets?
Our range is probably pocket pairs, some AQs/KQs type hands, some suited connectors.
Opponent's range owns our range on this flop, and villain seems aggro/capable.
Also not sure if you realize flop bet is quite big btw. So was HH1 flop cbet for pot.
If we call the flop, our range is face up as pocket pairs, he's firing the 2nd barrel on most turn every time. Not sure the if he's aggro enough to fire the 3rd barrel with bluffs.

So I think the hand goes way back to preflop decision, what is his range preflop.
A) strong range (JJ+/AQ+)
B) light 3bet range (Axs, any pp, any playable suited cards, broadways)

If we believe he had a strong 3betting range, I probably just fold the flop.
If we believe he was 3betting light, I probably just 4bet and go from there.

You said it yourself, alot of the hands he was playing were straight out 3bets. So I'd probably put him in the light 3betting range category.

A bit off topic, but I'm chiming in to offer the opinion that background hand histories (when they are of the type — "V saw hero do x,y, z) are of extremely limited value. During actual, in-game spots there is obviously a dynamic where history is relevant to varying degrees, but it often doesn't translate into hand analysis, and it can often lead us astray.

For one thing, especially when you're unknown to V, their impression of your play is just as likely to be based on stereotypes about your age/appearance as on your actual play. Lots of people aren't paying attention, and even if they are it often takes longer than it should to alter an opinon formed from a first impression.

So not only do we potentially lack knowledge of how hero is perceived by V — which is what these kinds of hand histories are supposed to communicate, right? — but we also have no idea to what extent hero's image is factoring into V's thought process. Maybe they have the nuts and bet big becuase they have the nuts; maybe they're the type to fear draws so much that they play as if hero always has a draw. The point is that villain's tendencies and (quasi)strategic approach to the game are much more relevant, and much more reliable guideposts when thinking through a hand.

In general:
1. Hand histories are distinct from Villain's perception of hero.

2. Even if we assume perfect knowlege of V's perception of hero, it may be useless, or even harmful. Not to say this is necessarily how the OP is thinking, but to take it as an example — once we start thinking "Ah, Villain saw us cold 4! 97s. Therefore, villain is potentially going to be more bluff-heavy, or have more thin value, or less this or more that having taken a given line — we're kind of going off the rails a bit.

It's a matter of how you use the information, of course — maybe you're all giving this kind of information the correct amount of weight, factoring it in to your thought process in just the right place — but it seems to me that there is the potential to wildly overestimate how much our decisions should be influenced by what V has seen hero do. It reminds me of blockers in this respect: very useful, often important, and often causing one to lose the forest for the trees.

As for the actual hand:
If you think V's range here is very tight, you can check/fold the flop to the large sizing. If they're moderately tight you can x/call flop and x/fold the turn. Unless V's overpair advantage is heavily diluted by other hand classes (like lots of suited broadway, or lots of Ax), then you're just absolutely crushed on this board.

flatting that AKo is LOL bad.

with the TT, i would advise Limp/rr pre. BTN straddle and ur in the BB thats the best way to VPIP imo. otherwise u gut ur ranges from day 1.

AP pre yeah i dont love a 4bet here given how tight ur rfi is from this seat.

flop im considering a XR... i would probably roll for it u really do need protection and the pot is getting pretty big.

turn... looks like some 5th street chicken, check out my post in the psychology thread for my thoughts on this turn sizing!

Not to be too fawning, hyperknit, but where is it at 2+2? Thx.

Agree on the playing chicken part. Can't H sell a 4! bluff (which is what he's doing, 4!ing TT) precisely because of that position's perceived range? Assuming V is savvy enough to realize how tight H should be here, even with SB limping in front.

Result:

Grunch:

PRE - looks fine. We're deep enough to set-mine.

FLOP - Mmmmm...not loving this spot, when he bets over 1/2 pot in a 3BP on a low / paired board. I'm not ready to fold, and definitely not raising, but not happy about calling...

TURN - I think we can fold now. We were basically set-mining and missed. He's repping strong. If he's bluffing with this sizing, we'll be able to get value from him when we have a better hand.