say we had a game, standard NL/PLO/PLO5 whatever, but it was 3 players pitted against 3 players. Each team is allowed to freely share info, would this change anything, other than making more informed blocker plays? or would this open an entirely new can of worms and evolve to where a limp/squeeze would be the standard opening play, etc? what else would occur in this universe, and most importantly: how would you approach this situation mathematically, what spots would you look at first?

same situation, but now what if 2 super-nerd-wizzes decided to take on THREE jock bullys, what would be different in this 2v3 scenario?

and, do you think this would be a cool/fun format?

some friends and i did this, and quickly found that you find yourself in some uncomfortable spots, such as : is it better to all 3 go in pre vs a jam and have more board coverage, or is it actually silly because now you risk tripling someone up. or, as long as your combined equity adds up to where villain team has less than 25% equity, its smart?

looking forward to your responses, hopefully there are some numbers involved so i can learn

Is money pooled? Does each player manage their own decisions? How are players seated at the table?

If all 3 players (on both teams) can see all of their cards, and share the information with each team member, then this would more or less just be a heads up game, but with 6 hole cards on each team.
I have no idea what the solution to 6-card holdem looks like (would the best starting group of hands be AA-KK-QQ???), let alone what it would look like if each team member is in a different seat and can 3-bet their own team members.

good questions, yes all money is pooled and divided evenly at the end, and seat selection would be part of the strategy. decisions would be agreed upon as a team unit so obviously cohesion and teamwork would be a factor but let's just assume that's a non-issue. like one player controlling three accountsv another player controlling three accounts
I think it would be much more dynamic than six cards heads up

I had a little think about this, and I think your team is better off with AA, JTs, and 65s, for board coverage. It appears to me that you ideally want 3 completely distinct hands that don't block each other. (i.e. It's kind of the opposite of PLO, where you'd usually want 4 cards that work well together).

Even so, those three hands only have 74% equity combined vs 3 random hands. With a random deal, equities between the teams will run much closer, and the card-removal effects would be extremely important for working out the optimal strategy. I should think that it would often be the case that one of the team mates is dealt a hand that "interferes" with your hand, thus reducing its power/equity.
I think it would be an incredibly complicated game, and unless the rake was zero, or your opponents were clueless, it would be hard to find profitable edges. You'd also spend more time discussing your team's strategy in each spot, than actually making bets.