This isn't about uniform probability distribution. This is about how it's impossible to go from committing 1/7th of your stack with a wide range to just having 6 combos by the time the chips go in.

OP refers to the villains as squeeze-happy. What frequency do you need to squeeze from the blinds to be squeeze happy? 10%? 5%? 2%? 0.5%?

Because the 6 combos of AA and KK makeup 0.24% of his possible 2450 hand combos. If he's squeezing as much as 2% of those possible combos (only 48 combos, which does not seem like a very squeeze-happy frequency at all) and only GIIing with KK+, then he's folding to a shove 7/8s of the time in a spot where there was $212 in the middle and $1k starting stacks. Once he's committed that much to the pot with that wide of a range, it's just not possible to show up with the nuts enough to scare us.

Now I'm sure you're talking about villain's shove over our small 4!. Let's say it is the case that he only ever shoves KK+ in response to our 4!. What this means is that means villain's strategy is so face up that we could pull off a range manipulation (essentially, we were raising to "find out where we're at"), isolating ourselves against AK-/QQ- when we continue in the hand (which is the large majority of the time). This might sound like a subtle difference or it's maybe not even obvious where I'm disagreeing with you, but the point is that we're putting him on a very specific read and exploiting it to put ourselves in a spot where we gain a range advantage, while avoiding the relatively rare scenarios where we're up against the nuts (rather than acting in some MUBsy fear that he always shows up with the nuts here).

It's a sort of "The justification for the action can be more important than the action itself." Because acting on any sort of assumption that we have to be very worried about the nuts here is either illogical or acting in poor faith on the reads given in OP (which is another discussion).

AA, which held up. Sorry i alluded to results but didnt post them i guess. The results that tells me nothing.

I do think its possible, its just extremely exploitable. I think at least some weekend warrior types have learned how to 3 bet light and have no idea how to react to 4 bets after doing so.

Btn and BB are unknowns, so I am at least somewhat relying upon what other regs at this casino seem to be doing, as well as my experience with unknown regs at my casino (which isnt a huge amount of experience at this point), so I do think that someone saying "you reads on a typical unknown reg at 2/5/1k are wrong" is a reasonable response.

well I was thinking more along the lines of making a tiny 4!, like lets say I CIB to $240-275ish (with my entire range, which would presumably include AA). With a bet this small he might be baited into calling with QQ- and AK and seeing a flop OOP, and it seems like it would also put him in a tough position with his Axs and other bluffing hands, and he may even have to fold even with the bet being so small. It probably also manipulates his range such that I can fold to a ship.

Somewhat similar to this hand:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uce8vR8Nbdk

LMAOOOOO, forgot to divide by 2. It's 50*49/2 combos, so 1225, so KK+ is 0.49% of that range, and 48 combos makeup 3.9% of that, which is actually a reasonable squeeze-happy range. Whoopsy! Point still stands, it's just not quite as stark.

Ah, this brings me back because CiBing as a range manipulation is one of the very first fancy plays I added to my repertoire way back in the pre-2010 PS 100nl days. So thanks for that

CiBing is an excellent way to manipulate ranges but presents other problems. In particular, it's not very effective to use as part of a bluffing strategy because it's going to garner very few immediate folds. As a result, you have to do this with a very linear range, so this is at least functionally different from the "4! small so you can have a bluffing range" plan you presented in the last post.

Also, you're inducing more calls, which is theoretically closer to optimal than how most live regs play this scenario (a bot calls your $325 raise a lot more than humans do), so it's hard to argue that you're really exploiting them by doing this. Of course, a bot is also doing it with a much less capped range (bots not only flat more, but raise less than humans in the face of a CiB, so you're more likely to run into KK+), so I again won't go so far as to say it's impossible to exploit this way, I'm just saying there are a lot of things to consider before applying the strategy.

I just think it's helpful to know that you have shoving in your back pocket as a guaranteed +EV play so long as they're squeezing at a given frequency; you can decide for yourself whether the complications that derive from deviating from that is worth what you're trying to achieve.