Its kind of hard to say if i agree about the bluffing portion's conclusions without the turn and river analysis. It seems accurate if we assume that the 50cent bet puts us all in, but the aspect of future bets seems really important, at least in this example. Reason being is that Villains flatting range seems really wide and weak, including hands such as Middle Pair and pocket pairs that make like 3rd or 4th pair as well as spade draws with very few hands he'd likely be willing to stack off with (the better spade draws, and the Top pair types..maybe even less). So it seems an easy way to attack this is to double barrel, or even triple barrel depending on how station-y he is, which is gonna directly affect how profitable a bluff is...unfortunately that also leads to 5 part or more EV calculations which are fairly tedious and sometimes dont tell us enough to justify the work.

One thing im wondering about is if it would be easier to start with a river decision and then work backwards? This would be a way to counteract the problem of the above, as we could think as if we didnt have future bets somewhat reliably, and villains range is gonna be smaller. From there, we can widen or tighten his range based on different perceptions of Hero's range (or...equivalently...alter which villain we're playing), and proceed to turns and flops and preflops that are characteristic of that villain. We'd have a fail safe of finding if we made an error as well if we arrived at a conclusion that he had a hand he wouldnt normally have preflop. Idk, i think im rambling now.

all in all, its a good thread and im def gonna add to it with my own analysis later on...maybe even using your own hand with a different villain or finding a random one of my own.