Hero is white, mid 40's. Winning image, sitting on 650 stack in this 300 max BI game. Had just raised limpers pre from the CO and b/b/c with KJ on a T649xKx board with 4 to the flop and HU turn and river. Might have missed a bet otr (Hero checked behind otr), but bets were big otf and ott. Hero didn't think worse would call. The table strategy talker said Hero played that well, check otr was correct, etc. etc.

V1: white, tightish, internetish looking kid (to Hero), 28-32 age, 750 stack. Actually playing few hands, but playing them aggressively. Usually cbetting, etc. Seems competent and definitely position-aware.

V2: Just sat at the table, zero hands, and did not see above Hero hand. Asian early 30's, well dressed, but business like and possibly nerdy. Like button down shirt and slacks. Gave off "I want to gamble vibe" though. Can't explain it. Hero thinks this guy is here to gamble, like taking a break from a stressful job or whatever. Stack 270, just bought in, why not 300 even?

V1 UTG (750) raise to 20.

Typically been the standard raise at this table, including V1. Not sure if V1 had ever raised UTG yet, so Hero can't tell if V1 normally raises bigger from UTG/UTG+1 than other positions. Hero assumes this is a normal tight UTG open from V1.

One limp MP

Hero HJ (650) TTcalls

Hero respecting V1's UTG open. Thought about 3betting, but prolly behind V1's range (AA-TT, AK, maybe AQs, maybe AQ, big question is could V1 do this with 99-22). Hero decides to basically set mine. Though of course we could win if V1 checks non-scary flops, etc.

V2 CO (270) pauses only a half second and raises to $100. Just shoves a stack out.

Folds to Hero. Hero is a little surprised V1 folded, assuming V1's UTG opens were solid, but could be bottom of his range, w/e.

Hero's action?

Calling seems bad, allows V2 to play perfectly postflop with big ace hands. Considers shoving or folding. No idea whether V2 respects V1's UTG open, but that's an important question. Is this a standard squeeze?

Thanks in advance.

Calling is terrible. You can't set mine for more than 1/3 of his stack.

I'm shoving TT against a shortstacker.

Yeah not folding for 55BB to a gambly Asian. Just pile IMO

Oh and never call

obv never calling, against this v I just shove.

Thanks. Never considered calling. Shove or fold only.

First of all, if it were me, without any evidence, I'd assume he's standard TAG and give him a mostly value 3-betting range. Let's give him 99+, AK, AQs+.

We win 41.1% of the time.

Assuming no fold equity (which is accurate against his value range probably) and that "one limp MP" means one flatter:

EV shove = .411*$330 - .589*$250 = -$11.4

On average against this range, you lose $11.4 each time you shove.

And I thought that was a bit loose for a 3-betting range, esp vs an UTG raise.

Conclusion: it's close, but I fold.

Maybe this guy is squeezing with 99, 88, or 77 but more often then not you're crushed or praying for a flip. Just make a disciplined quiet fold and move on. Until a rec player shows me he's gonna 3bet with non premium hands I assume that's his 3bet range. Just getting it in in these spots against short stacks is a big leak in a lot of otherwise great player's game. Adjust to the stack sizes and realize this guy is obviously committed. He basically had set mining odds and position, why wouldn't he just call with a smaller PP? Even bad players tend to recognize that an UTG raise is usually a very strong hand.

"just bought in" - it's unusual to risk a fresh stack on a non-premium hand.
I'd also assume V1 has played with V2 before and he knows something you don't.

Sorry for the late reveal. Hero folded. Sounds like the team is split. So either fold or shove is prolly ok. Thanks.

I'm likely not folding.

A) because he just sat down.
First hand dynamics can be weird. People can do weird stuff because people give them too much credit.
B) He's asain and you tell me that he's giving off the "I want to gamble vibe".

Yah, I almost called, because of the gambly vibe. This was a close case for me. If V had been drunk or very chatty in the sense of truly trying to get the table to gamble, I might have called. Open to being wrong on this though. I put as much description as I could to show why it's close.