855K7:
So on the river before the OOP player checks, they have 16% of hands better than 88 of which 50% check. KK specifically the OOP player has 12% of and is checking 60%. Big reason why KK ends up checking a lot is just because its very hard to get value when we so heavily block all the calls. Especially hands like AAK, KKQ, KK5 those all really like checking as the IP player does sometimes go for some thin mergy value with stuff like AA8 (similar to our check raise with AA96). Also stuff like QQ8 can raise for IP. So having an A or Q or even J blocks some of the biggest SDV hands for the IP player.

This hand specifically is very close to checking back because AA is a big portion of the bluffcatchers for the OOP player, especially when we bet smaller sizings IP. So blocking Ax is kinda bad for our hand as we get called less often. Something like QQ77 which doesn't block any bluffcatchers still goes a more medium sizing because we just never have pots in this spot because of our polarity disadvantage (even after the OOP player checks) but now potting does become better than checking back. So that just goes to show that small changes to our hand which block/unblock bluffcatching ranges can have big impacts in the EV of our valuebet.

7796K:
To be honest, looking back at how I worded this in the video and taking another look at the sim I think I messed up in the video because you're right IP doesn't have that much KK. It's like 4% so its not 0% but its not a toooonnnn of KK which is what I said in the video. This is kind of misleading and also just wrong imo so sorry for that that was my bad. The main KK IP has is stuff like KK9 or KK with a doublepair stuff like that. Now in hindsight taking a look at the sim again while I do think blocking KK plays a factor, I think a combination of also blocking K7 is more what drives the Kx heavy bluffing ranges for the OOP player as the IP range contains 8% K7. So a total of 12% of easy snapcalls for the IP players are Kx hands.

So while KK certainly plays a factor, it's not the only factor and wording it as such in the video was a mistake

19:50 I wouldn't expect that many overpairs to fold vs the raise. Maybe some weaker ones but in general I'm mostly trying to deny equity from hands with overcards since our hand has tricky playability, but also we are setting up with a combo like this to barrel on a lot of turns and rivers which does make the overpairs fold. This spot is kind of hard to think about in terms of 'targeting x or y' because even something like QQ8 will raise as IP a decent amount of the time. Are we now targeting KK and AA? Of course not. We even get called by worse sometimes!

25:15 In this spot we really wanted the FD to go with our overpairs we were incredibly tight. Doesn't have to be the nut flush draw fwiw. Also something like AAJT is good enough basically we need robust additional equity and just a gutter doesn't cut it.

34:40 Its a bit of a mergy one for sure. We are getting plenty of overpairs to fold on the turn which is nice. Generally we aren't really getting called by much worse hands so yeah this was a bit on the edge for sure and monker was also on the edge with it mixing it into a check quite often.

42:35 Without the straight blocker they can fold yeah my range is super straight heavy when I pot turn so the straight blocker is by far the most important cards the IP player can have

Thanks!

Sorry, I just read the comments and didn't see that you commented on something similar.

Went back and when I saw the hand you were referring to I instantly remembered lol. Here is the equity graph for the river spot:

And yeah like you said your question very similar to what PokerNinjas asked so my answer there applies as well!

And just for the record literally every hand that I ever talk about in any of my videos has always been verified with a sim before I talk about it (except if it's some mega exploit hand vs a weaker player of course lol) :) I don't want to give you guys bad information so this stuff is always verified. That said sometimes I do overstate things in my words like was the case here I for sure put a bit too much emphasis on KK instead of the overall Kx calling range for IP!