I played a little bit last night.
This hand troubled me. Not many hands on Villain, but he was playing about 40/30 preflop and aggressively on the flop without being very aggressive on the turn and river as far as I could see.
He can c/r loads of draws on the flop, so I decided to treat my AA as a bluffcatcher, and call him down on a lot of turn and river cards. When he checked the turn, I assumed he's probably giving up quite often so I checked it back, although I am somewhat worried about giving him a free card. I hate folding on the river, but I think he has the flush very often, and he could well decide to check/raise the turn if he filled up, although I only need him to be bluffing about 30% of the time for it to be right to call. I took the time to groan and puff out my cheeks and grumble about not betting the turn, and then folded. Fml. 
PokerStars | No Limit Hold'em Cash - $0.10/$0.25 - 6 players
Hand #108033816262 - delivered by Pokeit
BTN: $43.71 (174.8 bb)
CO: $26.16 (104.6 bb)
MP: $23.69 (94.8 bb)
UTG: $10.00 (40 bb)
Hero: $43.36 (173.4 bb)
SB: $35.58 (142.3 bb)
Pre-Flop: ($0.35) Hero is BB with A♦ A♣
4 players fold, SB raises $0.50 to $0.75, Hero raises $1.55 to $2.30, SB calls $1.55
Flop: 7♣ 3♥ 4♥ ($4.60) (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $3.00, SB raises $5.50 to $8.50, Hero calls $5.50
Turn: 4♠ ($21.60) (2 players)
SB checks, Hero checks
River: T♥ ($21.60) (2 players)
SB bets $15.50, Hero folds
I still keep putting off finishing my new article on 3betting for our website, even though I could do it with a bit of effort. One reason is that I've finally gotten around to reading about some game theory that isn't just zero sum two player games. I can't help thinking that most of the stuff that I read about GTO play and 'game theory and poker' is based on the zero sum theory and therefore mainly bollocks. Maybe even what I've written about it is bollocks too! In anything other than play it once, zero sum games, there can be multiple equilibria, and which one might emerge in a real situation seems to be a real topic of debate. It's not enough to say 'this is GTO' - you have to discuss the environment in which a strategy that you claim is optimal might emerge, and whether it's stable. There are different sorts of equilibrium solution, and they won't all make you money against all strategy sets. I will carry on reading, but I'm worried that the poker world might be rather deluded when it comes to game theory. I will have more to say when I've made more sense of this.