Yeah that JJ fold is way too tight. It’s closer to a 4b than it is a fold. 70 is way too peelable here IP.

Ill try and chip in with my opinion here, even though I wasnt in the vid (not sure how replies should be structured in these group videos, could be worth discussing between multiple coaches anyway if people have different opinions).

I think the important thing to realise when thinking about this spot is that not all paired boards are equal and to understand the dynamics of each and how it influences the xr frequency/range of the OOP player.

A board like KKQtt is very different from say 665tt, partly because IP doesnt have a 'nut advantage' on 665tt but also because of the changeability of the lower board texture. Protection on 665tt is far more important than on KKQ (2nd pair on flop is still 2nd pair often by the river) and 2nd pair type hand classes will xr on this board much more frequently for this reason.

So if we consider that Qx combos have little incentive to xr on KKQtt relative to 5x combos on 665tt then we should consider other factors that lead to increases in xr frequency, such as equity. It seems a fair assumption that Qx + backdoor will be xr more frequently than Qx + no backdoor, and to some extent Qx with higher kicker can have multiple backdoors as well as getting more 'thin value'. This seems to support the idea of a more linear xr strategy with Qx combos - and it came about by our logical deductions applying common heuristics. Fwiw I think QXdd will be much higher xr frequency relatively speaking than QXcx because of increased implied odds and unblocking IP FDs - overall though I would say that Qx just doesnt care much for the xr line here

Now to answer your question specifically, I personally dont have a tonne of experience with flopzilla but equally think Piosolver/Simple postflop are excellent ways to analyse Qx xr strategy on this flop. I would say that its not mandatory to lock rangebet to analyse this spot or the xr strategy. I dont understand your issue with IP having clairvoyance over OOPs strategy within solvers - if anything this should give us a more accurate representation of our favoured xr candidates because IP knows our strategy and we still choose to xr in that manner. If you wished to consider the xr from an exploitative standpoint then try to assess within the solver where villain is most likely to make mistakes downstream - be that vs the xr, under/overbluffing the turn barrel line, under/overfolding after skipping turn cbet etc. This should give us an idea about where we might want to deviate with Qx.

Hope this helps

they play in some kind of garage/warehouse? lol

*First part in nutshell:*

Best one : D