Villain #1 in SB: she has been at the table for an orbit and a half and is on fire. First hand, she posted and was the one raising and 5-bet-capping four ways with KJs and bet it down with trip jacks on the flop. Another hand, we were 4-handed I raised the button, she ate the raise, called the 543 flop and donked the T turn, checked river, her T7o beats my A7s.
Villain #2 in HJ is just lighting money on fire in various ways. playing something like 100/30 preflop and not making many moves postflop unless he gets a whiff of weakness or is shorthanded in which case Q5o is the nuts.

3 limpers, Hero raises button with 99, the blinds and limpers are in.
Flop:
A-7-2r (6 ways, 11sb)
Checked to hero who bets, SB and HJ call.

Turn:
4, completing the badugi. (3 ways, 7bb)
she bets, he calls, hero.?

Given how both hands of hers, she was aggressive with a made hand, I'm having difficulties putting her on an ace.

Call and re-evaluate river.

Never a fold. Call and see

I give her a discounted range of 54s, 43s, K4s(that had a backdoor flushdraw on the flop), big maybe Q4s with bdfd on flop. Then there's a lot of hands that we're dead to a 9 against, and we're drawing dead against 53. Call it mubsy but I don't care with two opponents. I fold. This is the classic flop call to induce calls from the limpers, then she donks the turn so you can't check back. If I had one bet left I'd probably call, but I think reverse implied odds make it a fold.

How often is villain 2 likely to play an Ace this way. Like can he have A8 and play it this way?

I think the turn is closer to a value raise than a fold, but call turn, call or overcall most rivers is my preferred line until I develop a better read.

No chance I'm folding yet. Maybe fold river if bet and call in front.

I'm not. She donked turn with tp in one of the above examples. Maybe this is her idea of how to get the $$ in on the big bet street with tp: just keep quiet until the turn. Plus, there's the overcaller to worry about.

I still probably :sigh: call, but imo it's much closer to being a fold than people are giving it credit for.
Not sure I'd overcall the river UI. Probably cry-call one HU on a river blank.

Now I'm trying to imagine how I'd feel if I had KK (though kk basically equals 99 in this situation): would I be more likely to stubbornly call down?

There are some good points being made about how to read villain#1's hand
Villain 2 can have almost anything on the flop, but when he calls turn he has some kind of draw or pair (i.e. i think QT is a fold for him there, but 66 is not and it's possible he has Ace-x though he would have raised pf with the better ones)

She donked the turn because she spiked TP on the turn. She didn't spring to life after flatting the flop.

Fold. And with 6-way action, I probably would not have bet the flop either.

If it's anything like the 6-12 game I play in, it is almost guaranteed that you're looking at an Ace, probably with two pair. Most of the 6-12 players I know refuse to fold Ax, and they'll often just call on the flop if they don't have a kicker. Very good chance the bettor has A4 here, or a lower two pair at least. If not, she possibly slow-played a set. What else could she have?

This... and I don't think it's particularly close on either street.

I think that my game improved somewhat when I started to think about how KK and 99 are different in spots like this. They occupy different spots in the range of hands I can hold, separated by a number of combinations.

Think about the worst pairs you can have (87s? 66?). How far up is 99? If I fold 99, what proportions am I calling/folding between the worst pair and KK. How does this compare to the proportion of better/worse hands that she could donk?

The gist is that you can be stubborn with the hands at the top of this group and feel good about it because you know the worst and can feel good just letting them go.

How about any other pair, a straight draw, or just K hi?

I mean we've only seen a few hands from villain (of which we could argue she's played them badly,) why are we assuming her range is heavily dominated by Ax+? This assumption at this point is just silly imo.

Because it's not remotely consistent with the action at this point. If you're going to assume that they are making plays like that, you may as well ignore everything they do and assume they could have anything. I prefer to fall back in the information at hand.

I'm not saying everybody at 6-12 bets the same way, but I've seen enough similarities to make certain generalizations. Yes there are maniacs/morons who will bet unpredictably at times, but I don't assume someone is such a player unless it's strongly confirmed already. One or two hands isn't really enough. (And BTW, those two hands aren't all that inconsistent with what I've seen from many 6-12 villains.)

I can't see why we would call here.