Is this a mandatary call otf or we can get away with AA facing two check jam from whales?

The SPR here is so low. $125 in the pot with a little over $260 back. You can almost always happily stack off with an overpair at an SPR of 2.

Not very worried about V1 here and V2 doesn’t sound like the type who would fold JX in this spot. He also probably has a hand like KQo pure that he gambles with.

I think just close your eyes and click call here. If you are beat it’s just bad luck.

Not folding in either scenario. Pot is too big, if they cracked our aces they will get paid.

As played, I call.
In the hypothetical scenario, I think a little longer, but still call.

Thanks everyone above. With V2's player type, can we narrow down his range at all? I mean, if he had QJ / KJ/ 89, he can just flat V1's jam. Will this villain type be so aggressive with one pair / draws in a 3 bet pot this way? I figured this villain type can be calling way wider than raising.

We are drawing so slim against sets, and not in a good shape if one of them has two pairs, and the other one has a draw.

Given the reads, I think I might check back flop at least some of the time. My reasoning is they don't fold, so there's no hurry to get the money in on the flop, when all their draws have a ton of equity, and they can do wacky $hlt like check-jam / check re-jam with lord knows what sort of hands.

As played, I don't think we can fold.

Had they just jammed from up front, I dunno. It's probably a call either way, but with less money invested in the pot, I could see possibly folding, especially if we picked up any tells.

My observation has been that these sorts are desperate to get paid with their thick value, and will often Hollywood to feign indecision before jamming, or they'll be so excited to get their money in good that they'll beat opponents into the pot.

I'd think V2 can have all the draws when he pushes, and all the good hands.

Interesting. Let's say if we check back the flop, will we be able to fold to a brick turn if we now face a jam and re-jam on the next street? By checking back the flop, it capped our perceived range. TBH I don't know any standard pf 3! hand would check back this flop.

I'm less concerned about facing turn jams. I think these V's are capable of check-jamming with all their draws and TP or 2P on the flop, with two cards to come. I think they'd be less likely to jam light on the turn if they don't improve and don't know what to do with their weak value after the flop checks through. They may be more likely to just check-call, allowing us to control the betting and pot size, shaping up for a river jam.

If the turn is a brick and one or both jam, we're probably still calling. I just like it better because their draws have less equity. The exceptions I'd make would be based on any live tells.

I think it's fine to check back AA here, on this specific flop texture. I'd be more likely to bet if the board had a flush draw, or was more low to middling, without any obvious 2P combos.

One or the other may bet the turn for us with their value, or as a bluff. If not, we can make a delayed c-bet. So I'm not worried about missing a street of value.

If V1 only starts with $160, he's only got 1 PSB behind going to the flop. If he jams $120 on a brick turn, and V2 calls, we can just get the rest in, expecting V2 to call off the rest.

I guess my preference for checking back the flop is to let the hand develop a little more, gain information, and add a little deception, before committing ourselves to calling off with 1P.

Played fine. Call now and hope they don't bink or have JT, which is all I'm really worried about.

FWIW, I go $50 pre, but no biggie. $40 is fine.

The issue I have with c-betting is that hero is considering folding when they both jam over her 60% pot c-bet.

If we start out hoping to get stacks in, no matter how it happens, okay, fine. Just get it in and don't worry about it if we're beat.

I'd view this situation differently if hero c-bet 1/3 pot or less, possibly inducing a light check-raise. But instead of c-betting 1/3 pot or less, hero c-bet 60% pot, then gets concerned when V1 check-jams, and V2 re-jams. She effectively turned AA into a bluff by betting so big.

Most V's are not going to check-raise light when we c-bet large. What makes this situation difficult for hero is that she bet large, and our two V's earlier hand histories seem to suggest they might be out of line here.

But I'm not sure we can infer that just based on the fact that they're prone to loose calls. In fact, I think we might infer the opposite, and think that when they suddenly turn aggro on an early street, they're more likely to have stronger hands.

Loose-passive opponents can't seem to fold JT or almost any PP pre, and seem to struggle folding any combo with a J or T in it, if the kicker is suited or can conceivably make a straight.

Sure, maybe one or the other just has Jx, or Tx. But looking back at the pre-flop action, it seems reasonable to think either V could have flopped 2P or a set here. Even their OESD's are going to suck out around 1/3 of the time. If we're up against 2P or a set and an OESD, we're toast.

All of the above is why I might check-back the flop here. Against most "normal" V's, I might c-bet for 1/3 pot or less, and call a 3x to 4x check-raise. Against these two, I don't mind checking back for pot control and deception, and seeing what they do on the turn.

Just as a general rule, when I see opponents doing things that don't make sense, I'm leery of over-playing value hands or making reasonable bluffs, and prefer to take a more defensive posture, at least until we figure out exactly what they're doing.