meh. I disagree.

If villain bet/folding too much is a real problem then at the very least hero needs to put all 16 combos of JT into his turn check/raising range.

Can't see how you could. It's not just that we should be more apt to go for a check/raise with one pair hands like AA/AK/KJ than 33 because "sets prefer to bet 3 bet", another reason we should be more likely to check/raise with hands like AA/AK/KJ in this spot is because those times villain folds to our "strong" line he will be doing it with a decent chunk of equity given that we only have 1 pair, which means we can never really be costing ourselves that much vs that specific range that would've happily called down a bet each street but fold to our turn screwplay. Whereas the above isn't true for a hand like 33--now inducing a fold with a "strong" check/raise will certainly be costing us since we know villain will be drawing dead a lot.

IOW whenever you only have one pair--whether it be the nut one pair (AA) or a premium top pair (AK/KJ on this board)--and you induce someone to fold before the river, it's never a big deal because you're never that far ahead, whereas when you have a hand so strong that villain will be drawing dead a lot, you should kinda hate yourself if you induce them to fold.

Fwiw, I do think there's merit in that the KQx texture is one where a lot of people will play easily dominated kings weak, but will bet when checked to and probably pay off the raise.

If not, then we should probably be check raising JT as a default, if villain b/f as strong as like KJ. But like you said, not that I mind if KJ folds when I hold AA.

we really shouldn't be x/r'ing all that often vs. this opponent on this board texture.

what hands we donk x/r with depends on what we're trying to accomplish. if we're trying to play balanced and are protecting our weak, showdown bound range that wants to x/c twice or sometimes x/c x/f, then we do it with a small group of hands. if we're doing it to exploit the fact that this villain will bet when checked to with a wide variety of hands, then we'd want to do it with more hands. if you want to donk x/r with AA, AK and KJ because this guy will bet the majority of his range, then i agree with you.

however, what you're talking about in your post is essentially inducing bluffs from our opponent. we would rather induce bluffs with our bluff catching range not the near top of our range. we shouldn't be worried about villain b/f'ing the turn if we choose to donk x/r with AK, because the hands villain b/f's with aren't the hands we're targeting. we should be targeting hands that will bet when checked to and call down, but would only call had we just bet ourselves. also, we don't need to worry about villain b/f'ing because the bluff that we've just induced would've folded had we bet. in that case we gain a bet that we wouldn't have gotten had we bet. i don't see many villains folding pairs (Kx or Qx) after they bet them that often at these stakes.

what about the times we're up against a villain that's more reasonable? someone that can hand read and has a decent understanding of what our turn donk checking range is like here. they're going to be more selective with the hands they bet. giving them a free shot to realize their equity could be pretty bad. also, if our goal is to check hoping that they'll bet, this villain is going to need a strong enough hand with which to bet. if we're blocking those hands, what is this villain betting with?

what i'm trying to say is that,
1. we don't need very many combos of strong hands in our turn donk x/r range in order to balance our weak showdownables.
2. we can choose those hands from our range that don't mind it checking through i.e. bottom set and JTs. and our villain is going to have far more Kx and Qx hands with which to bet since we're not blocking those hands.

I think you might be missing that a ton of our range can't just blindly bet the turn here. I didn't really see you mention that. If we are checking to call or to give up a lot - it only makes sense to have a c/r range.

that's the thing, we need to first define our range before we figure out which hands to x/r with. i don't even have 22 or 33 in my range as my default. i'm opening around 30% here and i'm assuming that a lot of the hands that bet the flop are also betting this turn card. it seems like your post implies that i'm suggesting we don't need to donk x/r at all, but that's not what i'm saying. i'm saying that on this board texture we don't need very many combos with which to x/r. but the hands we donk x/r with we like it if 1.) we don't mind giving a free card and 2.) villain has a hand to bet with and we aren't blocking that hand. bottom set, AA and JTs seems like plenty to me.

i know i'm terrible at articulating my thought process, but do you get what i'm trying to say? or do you just think i'm wrong?

I don't agree that a lot of the hands that bet the flop are also betting the turn card.

You have basically every suited ace, many unsuited aces, a bunch of suited connectors that whiff this flop, and all the pocket pairs JJ< really don't gain a whole lot by betting the turn. You have a lot of good candidates to c/c the turn (pairs and AT/AJ), but you are also giving up a ton with that range. Therefore, I think we need a lot more hands in our donk c.r range.

i don't mean to imply that i'm betting every hand that i bet the flop with. i'm certainly not betting JJ or TT or a lot of my Qx hands and i even have a few combos of Kx that i would also check as well as some of the hands you mentioned. my point is that this turn is one of the blankiest turns that exists, so we're going to be betting a decent amount. i don't think we need that many turn donk x/r'es in order to play optimally. especially when we're up against this particular opponent. i doubt this villain is going to exploit our turn check. my guess is he's likely never even thought about how to do that. but even if i was playing you (and you somehow got to the turn this way), i still don't need many turn donk x/r'es in order to make you indifferent to betting. so i guess we disagree on that.

i feel like 20 players at commerce are way too passive and straight forward to have much of a c/r'ing range here. I mean its pretty rare for me to ever see a good player in any of the 20 games. Now if your talking about 40 thats fair game, and i think its opponent dependent.