There's no reason we should be expecting to raise the turn. Look at what the flop action did to the size of the pot. V2 and 3 have less than a PSB left, and V1 only has 2.5 PSB. Getting stacks in here is easy. Our main concern should be keeping in V1, with whom we can build a $600 side pot. If we stack V1 and lose the main to a suckout, we still make $100 on the hand. That would SUCK, but it is a decent little insurance policy. The only reason I'd ever raise here on the turn is when V1 checks and 2 or 3 does something dumb like go $40 again, or maybe if V1 makes a committing bet, like $150. Both of those seem unlikely.

Honestly feels more like AQ/AT than 2 pair or a set.

What do you do against a player who will typically slowplay a set but lead out with TPGK because he doesn't want to give a free card when there are a lot of reasonable gutshots possible and is capable of bet/folding TPGK if the wrong player raises?

I agree with you that we should not be raising the turn, but about the bolded: let's say that we call here, and V3 folds. V2 sucks out on the turn, but V1 keeps betting. V2 gets the rest of his stack in, and then we call again. Now we have a huge main pot and a small side pot, which we're hoping to inflate on the river. The problem then is that on the river we are most likely going to be shoving into a dry side pot, which most players, at least in the games I play, recognize as a strong move. My point is that it's entirely possible that we get sucked out on and DON'T stack V1, which would be the absolute worst-case scenario. (And if V1 has a hand that is strong enough to fire 3 barrels including into a dry side pot on the river, he wouldn't have folded to a flop raise.)

I do agree though that if I thought stacking V1 was exceedingly likely by slowplaying, then we could risk losing the main pot for a shot at a big side pot.

By the way, calling the flop bet is not a "slow play."

I don't mean to be a definition nit (like my man AsianNit).

But we're not trying to let someone catch up. In fact, that's something we generally don't want to happen in a spot like this because when someone does IMPROVE here, it's a little too often to a better made hand (straight, binked better set) rather than to a worse made hand that could give us value (two pair).

That's usually going to be the case on an A-high board - generally, if we're talking about "letting someone improve," it will be to a one-pair hand. Say on 952xx when we hold 55 - we can hope someone improves to top pair on a million turn cards (T, J, Q, K, A). On an A-high board, no one can improve to top pair, and so the concept of letting someone improve at all is less useful.

So it's not about letting anyone catch up, and the lack of a raise does not suggest a slow play.

The call is about massaging a very large pot with decent position multi-way, using position to make another good decision on turns (that decision probably always involves putting chips in the middle, it's the precise details we need to navigate skillfully), keeping our range wider, getting villains to stick around with a wider range of absolute strength hands (top pair) but with low equity on average vs. our hand, etc.

Hmmm I just read some definitions of "slow playing," and I guess it could apply here. In my own play, I personally would never consider this a "slow play." It's not like every time we don't put in a massive raise with a decent hand, it's a "slow play."

In my view, it's just a play. Not slow. Not fast.

An obvious "slow play" is something like open checking TT on T52r because you crush the board and you want someone to to bink a top pair J,Q,K,A on the turn, etc. That's pretty much textbook "slow play."

I didn't bring it up above just to exercise my inner definition nit. My point was that if we call this a "slow play," I think we're misunderstanding the reasons for the call, which are a lot more nuanced than "slow play" connotes.

Anyway, /definition derail.

My raising the flop is giving V2 better odds on his draw when he calls $60 [after V1 folds] than what he got for calling V1's $40, so I don't see where I am "denying drawing odds."
And, since I would think V1 would call more often than not, V2 would even be getting better odds.

V1 made damn near a pot size bet, so I would think he hit the flop.

My raise is also for balance. I would raise this flop with those draws I mentioned above so that I may get a free card should I miss on the turn. Or, maybe I turn 13 outs & can take it down on the turn when they check.

IMO, V1 had an underpair to the ace, or a weak ace, and V2 had a weak ace or a weak draw. OR: They both read OP as a super tight player, who NEVER raises here without the goods.

What I missed/forgot here, is that OP says he was up against "solid regs" which would more often warrant a call. They coulda' been playin' at the pot [which they were] I we coulda' hung out in background. So, in this case, hanging out until the turn woulda' been better; but how often would it have been better?

Got it man. OK. I was just responding to this above ^.

Like I would never think about this strategically as that we are letting "them draw for the price they already paid." It just would never enter my mind... I don't think about draws and odds that way and that would never inform my strategic thinking in the hand.

But yeah, for some unsolicited advice, I would remove those ideas (letting them draw... setting the price they paid) from your poker strategy, as those really aren't meaningful strategic considerations that help us achieve max EV.

I really don't mean to pick on you, but in terms of "balance" ... well, you never want to "balance" in this spot for a bunch of reasons. For a big reason, this is 1/2, and balance is almost always entirely irrelevant. For another, like mpethybridge said, this is like a once every few years type spot. You should be 100% focused on the most EV play. "Balance" means you are giving up some EV to take a line that protects your hand ranges.

Further, not only do I think calling is the most +EV play, but it's actually does also offer balance. When you call in this spot, you don't just have Ax or draws - you can also have sets, two pair, etc. Having such a mix of hands provides balance to your calling range. In fact, if you're thinking about range composition, I could see an argument for having NO raising range here. If you call with your entire continuing range, that range can include draws, sets and Ax... and that gives you awesome optionality. When you have very good position, that makes you very difficult to play against post-flop, especially if you're range isn't too Ax-heavy (i.e. you're not a pre-flop station who have a ton of Ax).

Anyway, that's a derail because I think balance isn't important at all.

But it is interesting to think about having no raising range - that keeps our range wide and seemingly more capped than it actually is, lets us play like ninjas in position (i.e. among many a whole host of possibilities, we could sometimes turn a flopped made hand like Ax into a bluff on certain run outs), and it lets us achieve everything we want in terms of pot size because we can continue to massage it to our liking on turn and river.

I m always a bit confused when it s time to make a plan to get max value from a hand.

There are basically 2 options for now. Calling and see how it develops on the turn, or raising now.

I think raising now narrow your range to an AK or better. I think even AQ could be now out of your range. Obviously, this is not a good bluffing spot. So if you raise now, your opponent must have an AK with a lack of discipline, A9, 99, or the unlikely AJ, J9 for you to get action (since already 3 jacks are out). I think this is hard. But raising would be good if your opponents are on draws, but I think even now it s a little unlikely. V2 got a price of 40$ in a 48$ pot. For a straight draw, I think this is expensive. We never know, but I think with a good observation and hand reading you could see if this man would pay that price for a straight draw. And would V1 bet 40$ with a straight draw 4ways ^^ with an A on the board. I doubt it.

Calling has the advantage of keeping your range wide to a A-x or even an unlikely straight draw now. It also has the advantage of letting an opponent get two pairs, but also bring another card to make it possible that you got another pair. I don t really see which card could be a scary card. I guess a K-Q could look like you made two pairs, but could also make a second pair for an opponent. I don t think there is a real scary card. There are cards could come and help or not help, but we really don t have a clue for now. Like another 9 could improve or scare an opponent. We don t know. But there are more bricks than anything else for now.

Calling creates another round of betting where you have position. So it creates another round of betting where you have an advantage. Just take a look at different scenarios :

Opponent 1 bet, opponent 2 call or not, and you can raise. (and they are even more commited than before)
Opponent 1 check, opponent 2 check, and you can bet. (still with a range wide enough)
Opponent 1 check, opponent 2 bet, and now we have a new problem... but still a beautiful problem.

Thinking about it, I prefer calling the flop. But honestly, it took me like 10 minutes to think about all the details. Is it possible that this is a kind of borderline decision with a close enough EV ^^ So you could alternate your play in order to mix it up and remain deceptive ^ I don t know... But I think the best play is calling the flop so in fact I will say you should call the flop. I think protecting your hand is not the main concern here. Unless a read would let you know that one of the villains can shove very wide.