I usually go larger PF but have recently been experimenting with smaller openings when both blinds are full-stacked, assuming that a full-stacked player is a little less likely to be a fish and a little more likely to 3-bet me lightly. I guess the alternative is that I can just assume everyone at 5NLz is bad and always 3x open from the BTN but I'm not really sure if one approach is clearly preferable.

I was a little confused about villain's huge 3-bet size but opted to call. Folding equates to folding a ridiculous portion of my range, and I don't think a 4-bet does much in position (or at the very least, 4-bet/folding and 4-bet/calling both feel gross).

Feels standard enough. Villain has range advantage on this board texture and so the large c-bet is kind of scary, but I'm really high up in my range. Maybe at the top? I feel like I would always 4-bet/GII with AA and AK PF BTN vs SB, and I'm not calling 22, 55, A2s, A5s PF against his huge 3-bet PF sizing.

Not much has changed. I don't think villain has A3s/A4s PF due to PF sizing. Granted, I also can't show up with A3s/A4s here, and so I'm still pretty much at the top of my range.

Folding means that I'm folding 100% of my range OTT (less the times that I don't 4-bet PF with AA/AK, I guess). I'm all for overfolding at micros, but I assume I need something in my continuing range.

Between calling and shoving -- if he has a better hand, I probably lose the same amount with both options (if I call I'm never folding OTR getting 8:1, but maybe he checks AK OTR a non-zero percentage of the time?). If he has a bluff, then calling OTT gives me a small chance to eek out his remaining stack, although raising gets him to fold a non-zero amount of equity OTT because the board can complete the straight. I don't think there's much of an +EV difference between the two options. Mostly curious about whether we fold OTT or don't fold OTT.