You realize you could just wait till this same UTG makes it $7 and gets 3 callers to do this and win the same amount. You could make it like $42 or something, which is 2/3 of what you risked here, and villains would have much weaker ranges on average. Then if you get called, you have a bit more maneuverability with the slightly deeper stacks.

Wow.. what a hand to make a 4bet with lol.. but you have the reads, so go for it. As played, I think I like a $110 cbet, and obviously you fold to ANY type of resistance. Normally I would make a smaller cbet here with a premium hand like QQ+, but given that you don't really want people to float you or go bonkers on you, I'd prefer a bigger cbet to just take it down.

The main problem here is that you're assuming that V2 is trying to iso-raise V1 here but you don't mention any previous 3-bet light experience with V2. I wouldn't put anyone on 3-betting light until I've seen them do it. It just doesn't really happen much at $1/2. You level yourself into thinking some villain is running some elaborate play when really they're just playing straight forward.

(You said he 3-bets but not whether or not it's light 3-bets.)

I think everyone else has blasted you enough for the 4 bet pre and I'm pretty sure you expected that type of response about the preflop play when you posted the hand here so lets move on to the flop decision.

You give a ranges for villains preflop before you 4 bet but what ranges do you assign them calling your 4 bet? And what part of those ranges fold to a c-bet on this flop and call a c-bet? Answers to those questions should tell you whether or not a c-bet is a profitable play.

I disagree with you guys about having to have a hand here.

When you are 3betting light I think it's necessary to have something, like at least a suited connector or some hope, because you can expect to get called a decent amount o the time.

But when you are 4betting I don't think it matters what you have at all. You're repping AA and you never expect to get called.

When I looked at V1 he looke like he was getting ready to fold, and V2 is a thinking player so I know if I bet he will have to give me credit for AA or KK and he would fold anything worse then QQ... Also I thought it was really likely that he had AK

I c-bet $100 and both villains fold. V1 said he had KQs and V2 said he had AKs.

Needless to say I don't think I'll ever be 4bet bluffing at 1/2 again unless I am playing against good players that I know will fold.

So he calls with AK and is a thinking player? Doesn't sound like he is thinking enough as AK should be a 5bet jam or either a fold pre. Also if he put you AA or KK he should almost always be folding. Btw, Good cbet on that board-at least you got something right here

equity.... what does it mean?

Confirmed running in god mode. As for your logic, if they really thought you had AA only, they were never calling with KQ or AK.

Congrats on your run goot.

I'd like to clarify that my post isn't grilling OP for 4b'ing pre. I'm trying to get across a concept here: You're not really totally wrong with what you said above. If villain is folding so much to your 4b that the 4b is profitable, then they're not often flatting, so what hand you have doesn't MUCH matter beyond blockers and balance.

BUT if all that's the case, then you should know what to do on this flop. If villain folds everything but premiums, then you should know what to do on a 832r flop with two callers.

You're being too ambitious. Level 0 players don't think about what other players might have in the first place.

If they don't think about their villain's hand, then they can't think Hero has AA. DUCY?

Erm, no dude. What you said is that "[they didn't think hero] had AA only". What I'm telling you is that they didn't think about hero's cards AT ALL.

Wrong sir. About the only level 0 player is someone who has not played much poker at all.

And that changes what regarding their consideration of hero's range? Whether they're 0s or 1s, nothing. And it certainly doesn't change anything about "not thinking [xx] is in a range only" vs not considering the range at all.