Pre. I'd make it like 320.

Id bet bigger on the flop.

Turn blows. I hate bet/calling. I don't think i like bet/folding. I guess I'm checking by default. although I dunno what we can hope for if we check here. If he bets are we calling turn and folding half the rivers? or can we profitable check/raise turn here?
I honestly have no clue what to do on this turn. everything looks terrible.

as played, I'm calling the river. I would have prolly folded the turn though. I don't like the bet sizing on the turn at all.

Don't 3bet good lags OOP 300bbs+, you're just gonna get dicked with.

Bet flop / turn bigger, wtf. I'm folding somewhere.

+1

This should be a good sign that something went wrong...Turn was played pretty poorly which is getting you into this tough spot. c/c turn is probably the most optimal play given villain's description

So we should flat and play a 4 way pot?

I agree 300 is a better sizing 300bb deep.

Betsizing is awful on every street. Fold turn, call river.

Bigger all streets and +1 to bet/fold turn. As played, this is pretty much the nut river, no?

not really sure i agree with this adjective. but as for the rest i already said that if i bet turn it should have been a bet/fold.

without a doubt and this is what threw me since he still shoves. My hand is basically face up imo. Is this guy really going to try to bluff an unknown off of AA when the best river in the deck rolls off? he was Slag not stupid.

I think having a no 3bet range OOP, or no 4bet range OOP (500+) super deep is a valid strategy vs supposedly good LAGs, but I wouldn't say hero is supposed to know villain is good or not.

Do you bet QQ/KJ or similar the same way? What about draws? I am worried your bets look exactly like a scared KK+ to him. So you basically cannot have the nuts (or almost nuts) 300bb deep on a wet board and now I put myself into the shoes of an "aggro wild man" that can have a lot of strong hands...

In short: your range seems to be capped while his is not. On a more basic level you are just giving some great odds as well.

The river increases your equity by up to 20% (depending on what range you give him) though. All the draws missed (their equity goes to 0). Also it is now less likely that he has 99/Q9/T9 plus you beat QT now. With the odds you are getting I think you have to call now.

Does anyone have more thoughts/theory in regards to no 3-betting this deep?

I've written something about having no 4bet range super deep (when OOP), but much of it applies to 3betting IP too. Don't know where I posted it though, but the idea in general is just that when we're deep (500bbs+ was mostly when I meant it, I think 300bbs is still okay) and against a range that should be quite strong and playable postflop anyway, it's very very hard to construct a range that is +EV and optimal across the board. We're going to have very very poor board coverage unless we 3bet (or 4bet in my original post) too much junk, like we have to basically xbet with range of, for example: A2-A5, 67s 78s 79s T8s J9s Q9s KJo to get adequate board coverage. This range, is 3.9%. I constructed it assuming we don't want to flat 67s 78s too much (or we're neutral about it) so we can just put it in our xbet range. The thing is, when we're that deep our value xbet range is .9% if it's KK-AA, and 2.1% if it includes AK. I think in some of the examples we want to actually flat AK, and if that's true, our range is already too weak if we have 3.9% weak hands and only .9% nutted (hands that can stack off), not to mention KK is not even a hand we want to stack off with (though it probably still plays alright flatting the 4bet or 5bet), so what I am getting at is, if we're trying to construct an xbet range that plays well postflop vs tough players and is hard to exploit, we'd end up having too light of a range (technically the solution would be to only xbet with 1 combo of each of those hands so it is reduced to about 1% so we have approx 1-1 nut-air ratio), not to mention many of those hands will be -EV in a vacuum anyway (like vs anyone good, who has a strong range, and knows to float or call down we're just not going to show a profit 3betting some of those hands), so we're sort of trapped between either bluffing too much, or always having to bluff catch on certain boards and runouts. There are just SO many boards and runouts where we're super capped so against good LAGs 500bbs+ we're going to be forced to pot control while OOP (we can't value bet well when our range is capped and also face up) to the point where we probably gain more value by flatting and getting villains to value cut themselves, barrel into us, or open up spots where uncapping our flatting range gets us extra value or more opportunities to bluff on boards that if we wouldn't be able to do as easily if we split our range. If we play OOP well and make good c/c decisions against aggro opponents I'm not really afraid of having to do that.

Obviously I am discussing a balanced strategy so it's only a starting point; we want to have a 3 or 4bet range for the majority of games we play in, it's probably a pretty **** game if I am advocating to actually follow this strategy, but it could be a game where there's 1-3 whales and lots of strong regs who all cover the whale, in which case when the whale is not in the hand, I'd play a very passive game in general, especially OOP.

When it comes down to it, I think playing super deep vs decent players we're not actually winning much more money xbetting AA KK than if we flat pre, but it does make us tougher to play against, even though conventional thought seems big on the whole "if you 3bet more you're tougher to play against" thing, which imo is basically a myth.