Wouldn't raising be better on such a wet board? There are so many cards which could make the situations so awkward on the turn.

this board isn't wet. You dont want to see very few cards, like 9, Q, 8.

I think it's pretty wet, I'm not happy about seeing an A, K, Q, 9 or 7 (an 8 would be pretty nice)

I have no idea how you counted it but your equity is over 60%
http://i.imgur.com/nCBtCsf.png

So you are basically counting that either both villains call/raise or none of them will. That is incredibly unlikely. Also if villain no2 flats QQ+ as OP said you think he will fold it on the flop?

If villain2 calls/raises overpairs and both villains are good to go there is still enough equity
http://i.imgur.com/kpMVk07.png

I am sorry I am just not buying your calculations

You are working with an absolutely unlikely scenario and that is that both villains hit pretty much the nuts. That is ridiculous.

So if villain1 calls and villain2 folds to your raise it was all of a sudden not for value? I somehow don't get you. Also if villain2 has QQ+ in his range and is not folding an overpair to a flop raise it is a mandatory stack off even if both villains hit the flop.

So even in the best scenario villain2 can't hold AA?

Also you have not answered my question. So if villain1 calls and villain2 folds to your raise it was all of a sudden not for value? The vast majority of time you get played back by one villain and not by both at the same time.

What's your opinion on shoving my entire continuing range here? I guess this looks like 88-JJ, AQs since I'm usually 4betting QQ+ and AK. So I have 9 sets, 6x 99 and 4x AQ but the "bluffs" have a lot of equity when called. Or would you split range into x/c and x/r? (If SB and BTN were good players)

We can't simply ignore the BTN for simplicity's sake though, his presence in the hand is extremely important. He's 3 bet our UTG open and then cbet a flop 3 way that smashes both ours and SB's cold calling range. I think it's fair to assume that his range here is very strong. And I'm not sure why you assume his sizing is indicative of weakness? This looks like fairly standard sizing for me in a 3 bet pot a little over 100BB deep effective. He can get the money in effectively over 3 streets and is probably sizing it this way with his entire range, no? If anything he should probably make it smaller to avoid an awkward SPR on the turn, or bigger to get the money in over two streets rather than three (arguably preferable given that he's going to have few bluffs here and lots of incentive to protect his equity on this texture),but I imagine a lot of regs, particularly at these limits, just auto 1/2 pot cbet in 3 bet pots, so I wouldn't read anything in to it.

Your pre -flop range for SB looks reasonable, but his continuing range vs. our c/r is obviously going to be extremely different. I would just make a decision based on population reads here. If you think the average 10NL reg is just going to look down at his hand and go "lol overpair, 3 bet pot, 100BB" and shrug his shoulders and stack off, then obviously raise. If, on the other hand, we think these villains are competent enough to realise that us c/r this board vs. 2 players in these positions is an extremely strong line and that AA should be a snap fold when we do so, then calling becomes better. My inkling is that the former is more likely to be true than the latter, so I think I would raise here and chalk it up to a cooler if I get stacked, but I haven't played 10NL online in a while so I could well be wrong.

You think flatting KQ preflop is reasonable given the SB cold call?