Interesting! 

For starters, I get your realize-equity plan with the backdoors and all. With a little better showdown value, I would be happy to c/c this. Here I'm thinking, can a c/r be better?

I like starting with a check for several reasons:

- It's a flop that isn't particularly good for our range, so we can't c-bet a ton
- Getting raised would be sad (we'll have decent equity, but much of it resides in BD equity and one pair outs, which is hard to realize OOP against a raise with two streets left to play)
- Getting a free card with our outs would be nice
- When Villain bets, we can choose between putting in zero (nah), one, or two bets

It looks like a close spot where we can't really make big mistakes whether we bet or check, and I'm not feeling strongly about a c/r. Maybe a bet or c/c are better options as part of well-implemented game plans, but intuitively, a c/r feels like a productive option.

I'm thinking that we'll have plenty of weaker hands with some equity that can't c/c, and it makes sense to me to use those as c-bet bluffs instead (moving our c-betting range in the polarized direction OOP, which makes it easy to play well). So I slot this hand in the checking range and chase realization of decent equity.

We have to check quite a bit on this board. I expect Villain to be aware, and happily stab lots of air.  We need a check-continuing range that can handle that. It's good for us to mix in some light check-raises. Not too light, because I want to have some equity when called.

In a vacuum, a hand like this will work ok in that range. Getting Villain to b/f weak stabs that are flipping against us would be a big score (and when he gets stubborn and calls, we have some nutty outs). A tad more showdown value, and I would check-call and realize equity that way. As it is, I'm a bit reluctant to c/c since much of our equity comes from hard-to-realize components (turning pairs is good for us, but it won't make us very happy).

I'm not 100% convinced by my intuition, though, so let's hear hear arguments for the other options (cbet, c/c).

Even though this hand works nice in our c/c range, i think it's a bit too strong with the 2 bdfd. Imo the hand is a bit easier to play with a cb and also we need to think about building the pot now. By c/c the flop we have chosen a kind of potcontrolish line with a hand that connects so well on a lot of turns, and imo it would be a shame not to start building the pot. 

Also by c/c the flop we are letting him almost always control the pot to the river. I could see my self c/c this hand in the spot, since i do often take a controlish line in these spots. But it think we are gaining a bit more by cbetting.

i agree with many things you said however no one said anything about the turn play which i think i am making a mistake in. Do you think x/c ott is good at all ?

What about x/r turn? We do have some JT in our flop c/c range after all, and we have the T blocker + straight draw if called by a set.

This seems close between a b/c and c/c.  You have to xf or xr this turn, his line is a good example of why you can't xc.

But what combo's of JT are u x/c otf ?

As a rule of thumb, I don't get fancy OOP unless I know exactly how my opponent will respond to my unorthodox line. With reads this would be a good one to c/r against a frequent stabber, for example. 

Going along with the above, playing without the initiative when OOP in PLO is difficult.. And hands are hard to play unless you know what you're repping. When you have a medium on this board (which I think it is given the circumstances), Just bet and know that you will get more peels than raises, and lots of folds and even more turns that you can continue aggression on.