Hey, first of all, in general it's better to have a polarized 3betting strategy from the big blind, as we close the action and have a great price to call.
3betting all suited aces at some frequency is probably correct, I beleive snowie advices to 3bet all suited aces bb vs button vs 2.5x, and tightens up a little vs 3x.
As for preflop it's pretty tough to say which play is better with the described hands, as it's unsolvable (at least for me ;) ).
Versus weaker players I tend to 3bet much lighter for value as they tend to not 4bet bluff much at all, call a lot vs the 3bet, and play fairly passive postflop.
So I dont know anything about the tendencies at bovada, so I can't really say too much about what your strategy should be.
I think sauce replied to a fairly similar question in of his latest videos where someone asked why he 3bets JTs bb vs button. It's just the highest ev strategy to 3bet a variety of hands to connect with various board types.
For suited aces it's slightly different as we already have a very good amount of Ax that we do 3bet, so that's why I personally don't do much 3betting with A9s-A2s.

Thanks! That makes some sense, but don't you think going too polar out of the BB when out of position facing a skilled BTN could be a slight mistake? I see a lot more merit to going polar IP when we are 3-betting BB vs SB opens as opposed to playing pots out of position with weak holdings when skilled buttons are likely to just call us a lot. I feel like a lot of the polar 3-bets out of position are just going to go negative. Talked with Tyler about this situation and he seems to agree.
He was talking about how the whole polar thing came about which was years ago when people were actually folding too much to 3-bets. Not so much the case in today's games where people just call all the time. It's rare for me to see people in the mid 60's-70's even on Bovada which is a lot weaker than stars.

It's quite obvious that nobody knows the true answer yet :) It may be more important how well you play your range than the exact range itself. With that said, I feel like pre-flop sets the course for the entire hand. When buttons are likely to start flatting us a lot, it makes me want to go linear.

Anyways, thanks for the interesting take on it. I know snowie likes to go polar even when out of position BB vs BTN. My situation is a little different because players are anonymous and I'm unsure to their strategy. So for me going linear makes a lot of sense given I'm not sure if the guy is a reg or fish (fish call a bunch, really don't want to be in there with low suited connectors/1-gappers and weaker stuff).

Thanks Teneuss!

Yes your assumption is indeed correct, I will have 2 different sizings, as overbetting makes sense with some 45/9T to get max value from his 2p/Qx hands, but we also want to valuebet as thin as K8 quite often. Ofc we will have to mix it up with 45/9T as well because our opponent can very well play his 45 combo's the same way.

On the river we will have 52s/42s/JT/J9 combo's as bluffs, with some Txdd/9xdd as well.
Id personally choose ingame to play 52s/42s as overbetbluffs, being lowest in our range and blocking the few nutted combo's my opponent has.
I tried to calculate it myself, but I kind of got lost during the process ^^.
I looked in PIO and it seems to agree with my assumptions, to bet 45s for an overbet along with 25s/24s, and it mixes it up a lot with 9T/95s, PIO bets 9T and 59s for 2/3 of the time as an overbet and 1/3 of the time for a regular sizing.

Cool thanks ! I really try to implement that in my game

I agree, I think I should bluff a hand this low in my range, especially since a lot of our flop and turn bluffs pick up some showdownvalue (89/78), so 23ss becomes quite an obvious bluff actually, we just don't have enough 7x/9x/KJ combo's we end up with to only bluff those, so you are right sir, missed bluff oppertunity for sure.