Agree.
Preflop just fold when on the SB with such a hand one can call with those hands on the BB as your closing the action.
UTG bets out on the flop against 3 opponents on a board that is not advantages for his range which is kinda strange and screams I have something and you gonna pay for a flush draw.
On the turn for that reason you got to just call you have decent implied odds to make this a good call.
Check raising would not been bad if the pot was heads up all the way but due to being it a multi way pot on the flop one should give UTG much more credit for having an over pair or better or a monster draw AhKh so on the turn your fold equity is almost zero.

SnowAndFire Could you elaborate on why you think turn play is fine?

Since Hero has a monster draw, he's getting direct odds to call; so calling should always be more +EV than shoving?

When the villain bets the turn I would venture to guess that he should be overbetting (larger than geometric) due to the wet nature of the board. Though it could be that a smaller size such as this is correct being that hero's flatting range from the sb should be quite condensed. Either way I believe that villains turn betting range should be quite polarized (low freq/high hand strength) as he will end up cbet/folding too often or cbet/calling too light if he bets with all his draws and thin value hands.

In these scenarios we tend to see that our turn bluff-shoving range should be hands with very robust equity when called and not as much worried about blocker effects as you would think. My first choice for bluff-shoving hands would be hands like [A5hh, A4hh] as these hands tend to dominate villains draws that call the shove and have very robust equity versus villains value-calling-range. Combo draws are fine to bluff shove with as they have robust equity as well. I will run a PioSOLVER sim to see what it favors. Calling may be the best option for hero's specific hand, though being that people c-bet this type of turn too often I would guess that we should widen our turn raising range to punish villains EV and hands like this would be the first to go in there as a bluff (if it is not already).

Let´s be realistic tho.
How often will a Micro Player bet turn with his draws and how often with value hands. I´d say he checks his draws at a damn high frequency and his bet means 85% of the time just a strong jack, overpairs and sets.
So I prefer the call for sure since we also get good odds and then just lead rivers if you hit. Shove if you hit a straight with no flush possibilities and block bet flushes.
Thats what I´d do and I think its most profitable way of playing vs these players.

Open for criticism.

First I am going to say a couple things.. Multi-way spots are not solved and we should be careful about trying to take the information from a HU solver and thinking that everything applies - this is not always the case. Also, this sim was quickly thrown together. The level of abstraction may be high and there may be convergence issues. Though I do believe it is close enough for what we want.

So here you can see that the EV of T8hh call and raise are very close when solved. It shows that the EV of raise is slightly higher but if we were able to solve to 0 exploitability I would be willing to bet they would be the same. Therefore, against a GTO opponent it does not matter which option we take. Against a nemesis opponent (one who will always counter us perfectly) we should be mixing to remain unexploitable. Against a sub-optimal opponent who does not adjust quickly the best option would be to take the one which causes them to make the most mistakes.

If the opponent cbets too often, which is likely, we should be reducing the EV of his range by shoving thinner value hands as well as hands such as this at 100% frequency because he will fold too often which will increase the EV of hands such as this. That will make this a pure shove rather than mixed.

If opponent cbets not enough then we should be calling 100% (most likely) as to not be handing his range, which is value heavy, more EV.

Let´s be realistic tho.
How often will a Micro Player bet turn with his draws and how often with value hands. I´d say he checks his draws at a damn high frequency and his bet means 85% of the time just a strong jack, overpairs and sets.

This is low stakes but not the micros. Anyways, we dont have much information on this player so we can't say he bets too much or too little without reads. The only information I see is that he opened for 4x and that he chose 66% OTF in a multi-way spot. We know that these sizes are sub-optimal and too large (from having solved the game enough). Since he is using sizes which are too large I believe it would be safe to assume that he also bets to frequently to be using these sizes. Other than that, it is tough to definitively lean one way or the other.

Where did you get this 85% number and the range? Are these something off the top of your head?

Just because calling is +EV does not mean you should always be taking that line. Other options can also be +EV but have higher EV.

So I prefer the call for sure since we also get good odds and then just lead rivers if you hit. Shove if you hit a straight with no flush possibilities and block bet flushes.
Thats what I´d do and I think its most profitable way of playing vs these players.

This is very exploitatitve and I don't want to use the wrong words but I would normally call this range construction fishy. When you deviate this far from equilibrium you open yourself to a world of counter-exploitation that many 100NL players this day in age are able to act on.

I play 50NL and this is just what I experienced.
When doing work with solvers one of the key points I learnt is that literally nobody has enough bluffs in most spots and this in my opinion is one of them.
Didn´t see that he opened 4x but if he is any regish we can assume he is not bluffing enough to make this close in my opinion.
He is also betting into 3 people. This is just so nutted it´s not even funny.

We have to remember that we (low stakes players) are actually ridiculously bad at poker and the only reason we make money in these games is being a nit and profiting of fishy players that don´t fold.

It´s sad but true. And I don´t think being unbalanced matters in any way in this very very unique spot since it´s coming up so rarely.
Also one of the main reasons we nits make money in these games is that humans get tilted easily and if he is on tilt he ain´t gonna fold his AA or sets vs a river shove even if he basically knows we have it every time.

Other than that he´s just gonna check back all his turn value range on a scary river card and I don´t believe he has any bluffs on these rivers if he bets. Literally 0 bluffs. He may bet/fold overs and sets but probably not. Just think leading makes more money.

Can you show what villain´s betting range on the turn looks like in your sim?

SnowAndFire I have several comments here. I use GTO+, and not Pio, and I'm very new to the software, so I may make some errors.

First, your comment about the solver preferring a (larger than geometric) overbet by Villain on turn is completely correct. When I give the solver the option to use bet sizes like 130% or 110%, it prefers that size with almost all its betting hands. The actual size chosen by villain (66%) is almost never chosen by the solver.

However, if we force Villain to only use 66% pot bet size on the turn, then in my sim, T8hh is almost entirely a call for Hero, with a very tiny fraction of raises mixed in (might be due to some sort of convergence issues?).

SnowAndFire I have several comments here. I use GTO+, and not Pio, and I'm very new to the software, so I may make some errors.

No worries. They should all end up at the same place if we use the same abstractions.

First, your comment about the solver preferring a (larger than geometric) overbet by Villain on turn is completely correct. When I give the solver the option to use bet sizes like 130% or 110%, it prefers that size with almost all its betting hands. The actual size chosen by villain (66%) is almost never chosen by the solver.

In my solution I did not give these sizes as I was just simulating what happened in-game.

Geometric overbets should be used when one player has a nut advantage and the ranges stay static from one street to the next. In this case no draws were completed so there is no huge shift in equity there. The one thing that was added was another flush draw which increases OOP's EV slightly.

However, if we force Villain to only use 66% pot bet size on the turn, then in my sim, T8hh is almost entirely a call for Hero, with a very tiny fraction of raises mixed in (might be due to some sort of convergence issues?).

Likely not convergence issues as I am seeing a check/raise at about 20% frequency as well, as was stated above. When 2 options are the same EV they are 'mixed'. Against a GTO player it does not matter which option you take. Exploitatively you want to take the option that is more likely to cause a mistake by your opponent. Exploitative strategies require no mixing - they can be pure strategies everywhere.

I'd like to note that our ranges and trees are built slightly different which can shift strategies.

Overall, we can see that calling or raising are both fine options in a vacuum. If we have info on villain then we can lean towards one strategy or the other to exploit them.

As long as you remember that it is close from GTO standpoint. So at microstakes it is not close at all. Calling is just way better as people don't bluff enough in multiway pots and also never use the bet sizes GTO play will.
:)