ahfats

only thing I have to add is about op's conclusion that bb is 3betting wide here because of his stats - this way off imo, but is a very common mistake people make in poker (and in life! google "overfitting"). if villain is treating you the same as other regs, then him 3betting you 30% over this sample (which presumably is 3/10) is super super standard. to actually quantify how we should react to the information we have, we would need to specify our prior beliefs about the likelihood that villain is treating you similarly to other regs vs the likelihood that villains gameplan is to to 3bet you a ton for some reason. assuming villain is a multi-tabling reg and you aren't playing like 82/77 or something, our prior probability distribution should be massively weighted towards the "his 3bet numbers against you are unchanged from his overall 3bet vs regs numbers, outside of adjusting for position" hypothesis, so the small amount of new information we have should not drastically alter our belief away from this hypothesis.

calling river but I think the most important thing to point out is that your reasoning for the flop check is bad. you need to consider how your actions play out against his range of hands, so merely assigning a few combos against which a flop cr may be better than the standard bet/bet/bet line isn't a good justification for the play.

this is not to say checking is bad. if you don't intent to cbet this board 100% and want to check strong hands a small % of the time for balance, if you think an he'll barrel way too much when you check, if you think he folds way too much to a cbet, etc are all perfectly reasonable reasons to check here - but again the key point is that your considering how your actions work against his entire range as opposed to just cherry picking certain hands he can have and taking the best line against them.