I have very few true bluffs. We have AJ,JJ, AK,88, A8s, QTs, AQcc ATcc A9cc A7cc Q9cc (31 combos) that always get here like this and only 3 combos of bluffs. We need about 15 in order to be balanced. Turning a pair that doesn't even have much SD value given he definitely folds all 8x on turn and Jx that he may call with we block (and we lose to KJ), I just dont see us being good often enough to warrant a check rather then a shove.
The blockers are reasonable, and I just think we actually look very strong given there are so few natural bluffs and we were in MP (not the BTN or CO). I doubt ppl are inelastic with Ax and if so, they will lose a ton to my range, and probably aren't thinking players. Can you think of better bluffs in this spot, escp with the blocker... (i rarely have off suit combos so its hard to have a club blocker also)

If you have very few natural bluffs on the spot your bet sizing isn't in line with it. You should be betting way larger if KQ is the type of bluff you want to have. Even if you are bluffing very little on the spot, it seems a poor hand selection to do it.

If you are not opening T9s/Q9s/QTs (which position is mp+3?) and have none air then probably your range is too tight and you should exploit that by betting very large on every single street on this texture.

-All draws complete pretty much except for T9s and Q9s. Those are mandatory bluffs and that is 6 combos (because there are t9cc q9cc that are a flush).
-We have 36 combos of value hands: AJ (9),JJ (3), AK (9) ,88 (3), A8s(2), QTs (4), AQcc (1), ATcc (1), A9cc (1), A7cc (1), Q9cc (1), T9cc (1) 9+3+9+3+2+4+1+1+1+1+1+1= 36 combos
-We shove 13k into 17,200, we should have 1 bluff for ever 2.32 value hands. So we should have 15.5 bluff combos.
-If we assume he has an ace a lot (and therefore a blocker to AK, AJ, A8s), we have 33 value combos and can have 14.22 bluffs.
-What are 8 better bluffing combos then? ..... This doesn't win at showdown much at all, it has a blocker to a flush (rare given we won't have that many off suit combo non-Ax hands), and it blocks his AQo combos that he probably flats pre (top of Ax range).
Added remarks: he very possibly overfolds this spot given that if one does not have hands like 97s T7s Q8s that barrel off here a lot, they will have to be turning pairs into bluffs in order to bluff enough.

I definitely want to mix, it does have SD value but it blocks his strongest Ax and Jx and given I'm in MP he probably has a semi-strong range pre. he's going to connect with boards like this a lot with hands like JTo 98o QJs ATo A4s.... its not like he has q3s 53s 65o T7o. in HU or 6max BTN v bb it may be different but here i think its ok to start betting it given he probably doesn't 3b AQo so its nice to block that.
Also, is it really an easy call down ? I have very few true bluffs on this river other then T9hh T9ss T9dd. Given that I block his stronger hands (his pair+FD hands) and that he doesn't have much Jx and 8x anymore, and i have a ton of value hands (AJ,JJ, AK,88, A8s, QTs, AQcc ATcc A9cc A7cc Q9cc....31 combos), it seems like a good spot. I definitely dont think its an auto call with any ace as the only other decent bluffing hand is maybe KT and I dont have those off suit combos. Plus I won't get out of hand bluffing this because I only have 3 combos of KxQc and 31 combos of value. And if he does call all Ax, I can expand my value range to AQ and AT

then what are suitable bluffs? If he has nut combos in his range, but we still do have valuebettable hands that probably win more then half the time they are called, do we want to underbluff those spots? Is the idea that on river if we bet pot for example, we shudnt have 2 value for every 1 bluff, because he will have some nut combos and not just bluff catchers? Does that idea (2 value for every 1 bluff when betting pot on the river), which makes us more balanced, only apply when opponent has a range of all bluff catchers?

You're right, when some of his range can beat our top range, he no longer has a pure bluff catcher range and we can't bluff as often as 33% of the time (when potting). Think about the extreme case: if he has Axcc here about 80% of the time, would you still want to bluff a third of the time?

well the issue with that extreme case is that then we cannot vbet cuz dont win greater then 50% when called, but I see your point.
How do we then find a good balance between bluffing and value betting?
Do we treat each value bet that might value cut itself as 1 less bluff that we shud have? so if we have 32 value and want 16 bluffs, but since he has 5 nutted hands most of our vbets lose to, should we have 32 value (bc they all still win greater then 50% of time when called) and have 11 bluffs? Not sure the way to do it, if there is a way to factor that in.
Seems pretty important to think about because theres a lot of spots like this in NLHE where someone has some slow plays versus the aggressor with the range advantage. (like on AK4xx, the non-agressor has incentive to call flop/turn with 44).

I'm not sure if there's a quick and dirty way of accurately doing it, but your method seems a good approximation. However, I believe there are cases where our threshold for value betting hands should be raised a bit when he has slowplays, because the very worst hands in our value range might not beat >50% of his range anymore. I'm not sure if that'd be the case here, though.

That said, I'd value bet with a similar range or a slightly narrower (=tighter) range, and bluff less as well for the reasons you mentioned.

There is two ways to see this.

I am never bluffing and want to get called, so I bet small.

I have a very strong range advantage that puts the top 10% of opponent range on a very tough spot against a triple barrel.

On tournaments there is a factor that leads to a folding higher than optimal frequency that is chip utility. Basically having any chip makes you last on the tournament, so there is less incentive to start calling down as you would on a rebuy/cash game structure.

The first strategy is highly exploitable and leads you to bet sizings tells when you have hands that you want to stack off on AsJc8d (that your opponent doesn't have with 100% frequency) but you are not betting enough geometrically to do it. This should make some saliences on your range that allows your opponent to play better against your strategy.

Raphael i dont see your point. Your saying that betting smaller when you dont have enough bluffs is highly exploitable and allows your opponents to play better versus your strategy? I dont see how you come to that conclusion