CO and SB button both standard regs, SB capable of being tricky and a bit more aggro wheras CO is more a tagfish. CO opens, unknown BTN CCs, SB calls and I call BB with 76o.

I've played with SB a lot and we have a little history. He's a bit more LAG then I am - he knows. He likely wrongly thinks I have a 3bet range here (the fact I 3bet the blinds with the same range I call with).

Flop: T76

SB checks, and it gets checked around.

Turn: 9r

SB checks, I bet, CO calls, BTN folds, SB C/R I fold.

The turn is really close since we probably have enough implied odds to justify a call. So I would call for that very rare chance that villain is bluffing. And I hate being seen folding in big pots when I obviously have something. He probably just has 9x every time though.

Am I understanding you correctly that you just call pre multiway in the BB with AA? That seems like a punt if so. I can't imagine the deception compensating for the 3+ missed bets with our premiums.

Does the CO check often as the preflop raiser? I might go ahead and lead the flop here, at least at some frequency. our hand easily gets downgraded her on a lot of turn cards.

turn fold is whatever. not a lot of natural bluffs here.

This villain can probably raise enough J9/JT/54 combos for a peel. If CO wakes up I can sigh call for one more and rage fold for two.

+1

Folding turn here would cause me to attempt c/r wider to exploit OP

Imgine this being -EV to fold turn per wider range indicated by OP.

PS: Think OP calls X% of time 3bets Y% of time is impression I got with 100% range which seems incorrect with AA as example

I've never actually just called a raide with AA pre, but I'm not denying the rare possibility that someday a spot could arise where I may decide it's more profitable then raising. Hasn't happened yet, but villains change, their ranges change, the game changes, so who knows.

I dont play a wider range from the bb btw... I meant I don't have a separate 3bet range. Let's say I defend 40%, then I'll either call or 3bet whatever I'm defending, determined by the particular situation. This was actually standard for some good players until 2010 or so (obviously the spot would have to be perfect in every conceivable way to call with AA, and even then I'd be giving up EV for gains in implied odds and relative position). Again, to this day, such a spot only exists in my head. I've never done it.

I think you should lead the flop. This is a big pot and the positions are such that you and CO can implicitly collude to deny equity to the other two players, You bet, CO should probably raise a hand as weak as two good over cards, and you both profit. In fact, CO should probably raise some hands that he would just check if you check, but now that you bet and present the opportunity, he can now raise to obtain the fold equity that wouldn't be present for just one bet. CO should recognize that this is not a great c-betting spot and should not be doing so with anything close to 100% of his opening range, so we can't reliably count on check-raising anyway.

Turn is a really unfortunate spot because all the options suck here, which is a reflection of the fact that are hand really is not that nutty multiway on this board. I actually don't hate just checking, even though it seems very weak to let this check through twice with two pair. But the 9 is such a bad card that it makes it defensible.

Yeah four handed it gets checked around too much on the flop so I like a donk. Turn is an easy fold, live players don’t bluff

Yup.
I call here .
U got the co possibly padding the pot too .
River might get check ?
We got a good hidden IO ?
Split pot if an 8 hit ?