I only have about 200 hands on villain whos been 3betting maniacally (25-30% vs BTN) from the blinds. Only relevant hand vs this character has been when he called my 3bet BTN vs BB w 97hh, called AKxhh and pushed 9x turn.

I am not spefically interested about this hand, but more about this spot in general. The thing that tilts me the most is that I really have no clue how to do a proper analysis of this spot. The best and probably the only way I know to analyze this spot is by using MDR which probably works quite ok since in 3bp especially on the river hand ranges are more defined than usual. The thing that confuses me about MDR is how equitys affect both players. Janda says that since the bettors hand has equity we should probably defend more than MDR dictates, but then again Steve Paul says that since the bettor is actually deciding between betting and checking (with some equity) we should actually defend less. And our bluff catchers, which construct most? of our range in spots like this also have some equity. Makes my head hurt. Like, actually hurt.

Sooo anyways, here I decided to give villain the following, quite linear, hand range {99+, 55-22, A2s+, K9s+, Q9s+, J9s+, T8s+, 97s+, 86s+, 75s+, 65s, AJo+, KQo} which is about 18% of hands. If you think of this as unrealistic imagine playing against an aggro SB. IMO the actual range here isnt super important.

If we just work with the MDR w/o any equities we should defend about 0,660,660,5=0,22 of our flop range. Lets say I call the 3b w {88-JJ,AT-AQ,KQ,KJs,KTs,QJs,JTs,T9s}, 98 combos. Hence we "should" defend about 22 combos on the river.

Obvious calling hands are; TT(3), KT(3), not sure if I would rather call the turn with 88 or AQ/AJ. Probably AJ- AQ, is that a mistake? So that is 6 combos. Other candidates for calling down with which we get to river are: JJ(6), AQ(16) AJ(16), and AT(12). Considering villain is probably betting any Kx for value and given his PF tendencies might even go as thin as QQ (or JJ) I feel that AQ faires better here than JJ and AT. After all it blocks AK(3), KQ(3), and QQ(3). So calling with TT(3), KT(3) and AQ(16) neatly gives us the "required" 22 combos. Villain is also very unlikely to turn any hand better than AQ into a bluff and very unlikely to valuebet any hand worse than AT. How does this sound in theory and practice?

Couple of noteworthy things:
1) Kbdf on turn is a card that this kind of villain is probably betting more often that not since is hits his perceived range way better than ours and he will probably continue barreling the river v often. Even too often IMO. He also wont exactly run out of bluffs..
2) Even if we think that villain will bluff too much on the river and decide to hero w AJ instead of JJ we might occasionally lose to AQ. That would suck.

PS. If you guys have any relevant video, book, article etc recommendations for this type of situations I would appreciate it.