Personal Challenge: 100 Poker Videos in 100 Weeks

NL100 Hand Analysis
Hey 2+2, holyjtiburon here. Just posted a new video breakdown and wanted to share some thoughts on a pattern I keep seeing at NL100 - players getting way too aggressive in polarized spots and massively overbluffing their ranges.
Recorded 5 hands from recent NL100 sessions on Stars. What stood out wasn't necessarily my hero calls or big bluffs, but how often villains are showing up with complete air in spots where their range should be heavily weighted toward value.
Hand #1: A♠T♠ vs Big Blind Overbluff
CO opens 2.5x with A♠T♠, BB flats. Flop 976r, I check back. Turn ace, villain checks, I bet 70% pot, villain raises to 15.6bb. River J.
Villain bets 125% pot (not all-in). I call with what's basically a bluff catcher and he shows JTo.
The Issue: After checking the turn ace, villain's range should be extremely polarized when he check-raises - we're talking two pair+ and straights. But it's SO easy to overbluff here with all the 86, 75, 87 combos, plus hands like T6, JT that pick up equity.
The 125% pot sizing on the river was actually the tell. Nutted hands want to go all-in here for maximum value. The awkward sizing screamed "I have a bluff and I'm hoping you fold."
Frequency management is the key concept mid-stakes players miss. You can't just fire three streets with every draw that missed.
Hand #2: Turning A7o into a Bluff Catcher
BTN raise A7o, BB defends. Flop K♣T♠7♦, I range bet 30%, villain big raises.
I 3-bet the flop to 30bb with just bottom pair. Turn 2♠, he checks. River 5♦, he bets 70% pot. I snap and he shows J9o.
The Thought Process: With A7o I have bottom pair, but more importantly the 7♣ blocks 77 and T7s - huge chunks of his check-raise value range. His check-raise on this connected texture is repping mostly KT and 77, maybe some T7s.
Combined with the connected texture, I thought he'd be overbluffing with Q9, QJ, JN, 98 type hands trying to deny equity. The 3-bet was pretty ambitious with just bottom pair, but I thought he'd struggle to continue against aggression in this line and didn't have a solid defending strategy against 3-bets on the flop.
The river 70% sizing from a polarized range is almost always a bluff at these stakes. Flushes (when the turn brought the second spade) and two-pairs want to either block bet or overbet jam. This middle sizing is the "please fold" size.
Hand #3: Set of 7s and River Value Jam
BB defense with 77 vs BTN open. Flop A65r, villain c-bets 30% (likely range bet), I call. Turn 7, we both check. River A♣.
I check, villain bets 70%, I jam. He tanks and calls with AJo.
The Exploit: Villains at NL100 have a REALLY hard time folding Ax on this runout because the ace blocks so much of our value range. We didn't check-raise the flop, so we "can't have" 66, 55, or A6.
This makes jamming the river with our actual nuts incredibly profitable because:

We can credibly rep a ton of bluffs (76, 75, 87, 85)
Villain thinks his Ax is near the top of his range
Most regs at this level will call with their entire Ax range

Hand #4: AQo in 4-Bet Pot
4-bet pot OOP with AQo (I misclicked the 3-bet sizing lol). Flop 642r, villain c-bets 25%, I call. Turn 7r, villain bets 25% again, I call. River A♦, I donk jam.
Villain tanks and calls with KK.
Key Concept: The turn bet sizing was way too small. At 25% pot, I'm getting amazing odds to continue with literally my entire range. If villain goes 35-40%, I can fold AQ here.
But against the small sizing, I basically only have AQ to continue with (since I'd raise overpairs on the flop). That makes it a mandatory call.
River donk jam when the ace hits is pretty standard - I have way more Ax than villain, and his KK/QQ/JJ are all in terrible shape.
Hand #5: Deep Stack Bluff with J9s (The One That Didn't Work)
4-bet pot 200bb deep with J♠9♠. Flop A♠9♣3♥, I c-bet small, villain calls. Turn 2♦, I bet 40%, villain calls. River K♠, I jam, villain tanks and calls with A♠J♦.
Why I'm Sharing This: Lost 100bb on this hand, but I think it's important to show that well-constructed bluffs don't always work.
My blockers were premium:

Block A9s (two pair)
Block 99 (sets)
Block AJs (top pair good kicker)

In deep stacks, you HAVE to be willing to apply maximum pressure. If villain knows you're never bluffing for stacks, he prints money by calling down light with Ax.
The call was theoretically mixed frequency. If he's always calling here with his entire Ax range (A4, A5, AT, AQ, AJ), then yes, my bluff is bad. But most NL100 players are capable of big folds in deep spots, which makes these bluffs profitable long-term.
Main Takeaway:
The meta at NL100 right now seems to be:

Villains overbluff in spots where they should be polarized (Hands #1, #2)
Villains overcall when they have "good" hands that block value (Hand #3)
Villains don't adjust their sizing properly in 4-bet pots (Hand #4)

The exploit is to call down lighter when you have blockers to their value, and to jam your actual value hands for max when you know they can't fold their capped "good" hands.
Questions for 2+2:

In Hand #3, am I being too results-oriented? Should I be jamming fewer combos than just 77 here?
Hand #5 - is this a punt or a necessary part of a balanced deep-stack strategy?
Do you guys see similar overbluffing tendencies at your stakes, or is this specific to NL100 pool on Stars?

Full video breakdown with solver outputs is on my channel if anyone wants to dive deeper into the GTO vs exploitative lines.
https://youtu.be/mPP3Eyl-3k0

Cheers,
holyjtiburon