I don’t want to think about which hands are better bets or checks on the turn but it’s clear that we’re repping at least an overpair with $175. If villain must fold 99 because we don’t have enough bluffs here aren’t we the ones playing badly? It seems like circular reasoning to accuse a hypothetical 99 call of being bad for not recognizing that we don’t have enough bluffs here. If you think we don’t and villain should know that then obviously we add more bluffs and villain’s call isn’t bad anymore.

Although this is all really moot if your range assessment is drastically different than mine.

If you thought it was nuts or nothing you would check river, not bet $75, and you wouldn’t include pairs in his range. Unless you thought I was talking about the raise range? I meant his range that gets to river. What % air, what % 2 pairs, what % hands that beat us?

yah, thats kinda what im saying, I think thats the whole point of the thread, OP wants to know how he played it. IMO poorly. He let V off the hook and set himself up to get bluffed with a very transparent bet sizing. 1/4 pot is vastly different than 3/4 pot. We target the low end of V's range with an underrepped hand. This can also induce a bluff which we can call. With 3/4 PSB we're targeting his good hands, and on a paired board thats a pretty scary prospect.
But we cant call a 150BB bluff on this river the way he played it.

The thing is we shouldnt really need any bluffs the way this played out. Who doesnt barrel AKdd on this turn? We dont rep any bluffs, we rep value and got raised therefore we have to fold. If you're going to check turn for pot control then you dont just throw it out the window with a nearly full PSB on the river.