the reason I c/r'd here has a lot to do with gameflow/dynamics. I certainly agree with both the points you make and think this hand is also a good hand to have in our c/c range, to like you say, 'strengthen' and protect our flop x/c range. I would certainly x/c this hand some% of the time, however this time decided to x/r, and generally as an overall strategy prefer a x/r with this hand this deep. It is worth noting that the point you make about having this hand in our flop x/c range is very true (strengthening our flop x/c range, stop opponents barreling turns wide) but this neglects that by x/ring this hand, we protect our flop chking range, and are gonna force our opponent to chk back this flop more often. If we have a very narrow or polarised flop x/r range, our opponent can cbet a very high% of hands without making too many mistakes. x/ring this hand 'depolarises' our flop x/r range, and will result in out opponent folding out equity a fair amount of times, making it a mistake for our opponent to cbet/fold certain hands. this is very good for us, and makes us tough to play against, and having a widish flop x/r range will result in free turn cards in future situations as our opponent starts to chk back more frequently. I like the dynamics this creates :) 

I don't think the opponent will go crazy and start 3betting this flop extremely wide. haing said that, versus a 3bet I was largely undecided and would have decided what to do based on the action (sizings, timings, flow etc.).... I would most probably call and evaluate turns. sorry this isn't a more detailed answer... these sorta spots come up so infrequently and so my decisions tend to be based more off the 'meta' than having a plan for if my opponent does 3bet heh. that is perhaps a leak in my game :) 

thanks

some 89** would chk back flop and raise nut straight on turn. Just because he reps thinly, I think that is somewhat fine because as the preflop 3better, and after chking the flop, I too rep quite thin on a j turn. 

I think tj** is gonna be a raise here most of the time from villain. turned draws can raise. this hand can certainly not call a bet on the turn, and I think it becomes a decent candidate to raise as a bluff. If, in villains shoes, we want a turn raise/folding range (which I think is important) I think this sorta hand, OESD to the nuts, an 8 blocker, qk block some draws as well as Kc, makes it a good candidate to have in our raise/fold range. having the pair of 5's also adds some equity in the form of trip 555's or two pair draws which may be good. can also barrel off some rivers versus a turn b/c. what do you think would be a better candidate to have in a turn raise/fold range? do you think having a turn raise/fold range is important? 

I feel his flop bet is a mistake versus a balanced flop chking range that has a number of x/r and x/c hands in it, and it will be losing money in the long run

I don't think having a r/f range is going to be important on the turn.  I think we can balance our ranges with out developing one, and I think it will be tough to avoid being exploitable in the process of developing a turn r/f range.  I think having a r/f range is much more valuable against weak opponents that will often be b/f'ing the turn or b/c'ing draws allowing us to essentially take a free showdown/set the price of showdown.  Against good regulars that will aggressively attack our turn raises with both strong made hands and very strong draws we set ourselves up for a lot of difficult leveling spots.  In position I don't believe that merging our ranges in an attempt to balance a r/f range is going to be our most profitable play.

I'd much rather plan on raising the turn with more polarized range, and plan on flatting lots of strong non-nut made hands and draws that don't want to raise and face a 3bet on the turn.  I think it's a more balanced and logically consistent way to play the hand.

I am definitely b/c dry t7 a larger % of the time than you think, and to me this idea of rasing for 'value/protection' is rather misapplied and lacks merit. I try to think in terms of overall ranges in each hand and situation, and never make decisions because I want to protect my equity in that hand, but rather make decisions to protect my overall range in situations. 

If we are never/rarely b/c a t7 combo here, then our b/c range becomes very faceup as draws, some two pairs and maybe 57(?). I think the majority of my t7 comboes here I would just b/c the turn with. my opponent knows this of me, and would most certainly give a turn b/c followed by a river jam a tonne of respect.

the river bluff is kind of a necessity to me now... I'm not going to b/c turn with plans on calling (bluffcatching?) river, and I certainly don't want to fold. yes OESD are gonna be calling a lot of the time, but it still puts them in a very tough spot, and if my opponent didn't have two 7's I really feel he may have folded. he folds out all his bluffs/missed draws. from a balance perspective I think having a bluffing range here is really cool and is gonna be good for our overall game plan in future situations

my plan would've been to chk back rivers we have reasonable showdown equity on if chkd too, and to bluffjam blanks and 7, j, q. I really don't like having a wide b/3b range on this turn; the majority of my continuing range I'd like to call with and play a river in position and with money behind. I think it is important to have some blockers in our turn b/c range so we can viably rep blockers on the river, as well as like I said previously, some nut straight t7 comboes to protect this also. 

it is also worth noting that even if we bluff and get called, there is a lot of future situations that arise where this image of us in our opponents eyes will get us paid off in situations where we have it, where they may otherwise have folded. 

still don't like it. 

you're suggesting that you would play a certain
way to protect your range, but when you're going to bluff in this spot
the issue is not whether or not you would take that line with the nuts,
but whether or not villain believes you would take that line with the
nuts. 

but here is the bigger issue.  for this bluff to work multiple good things have to happen

1. villain has to give you credit for b/c'ing with the nuts on the turn in order to induce a bluff or worse value on the river.

2.  the river must be a blank such that T7 or Tx is still the nuts.

3.  We need villain to not already have the nuts or blockers to a higher straight.

4. 
If villain is drawing we need him to miss on the river (if he has a set
or FD or a an OESD) the river needs to not improve his hand, or improve
an still decide to fold to a bluff from us (seemingly unlikely).

Sure
this is going to happen some of the time.  And you're going to win the
amount of money on the turn+whatever he bets on the river.  But it's
also not going to work a lot of the time.  And then you're costing
yourself at least whatever you call on the turn, and often your entire
stack considering your entire turn plan revolves around bluffing the
river which is usually going to be after villain bets the river.I
just think this is a huge parlay that simply won't pay off often enough
to be a profitable play. 

I think you can save this kind of bluff for a
spot where you have some equity in the hand with some kind of draw so
that you at least have some outs.  Or at least a spot where you have a blocker to a high flush so you can bluff rep those on the river as well.

I also think taking a possibly very -EV line for 250bb can't be justified by the development of future image.

I'd
like to here some other PLO pros on the site chime in.  I'm fine with
being wrong, but I would like to hear some other thoughts on the
competing thought processes regarding this hand.