AA hand - routine play against LAG?

[Phaedrus]

3/6 NL

Hero (1780), Villain covers.

Hero has AA and raises to 30, called by Villain in the big blind, a good LAG player who could have anything.

Flop: Kc-8s-3c

Villain checks, Hero bets $90, Villain raises to $290, Hero raises all-in to 1750.

What do you think of Hero's play? Does it matter whether Hero has the Ac or not?

[lapoker17]

Perhaps a bit extreme.

[ninjia3x]

I don't get it...

Are you trying to represent a big flush draw?

your risking a big stack with one pair. It looks like he'll only call you with the best hand.

[FoxwoodsFiend]

I almost always call. The 3-bet gives him too much of a sign you're beat. But you call and he's oop and has a hand he knows he shouldn't get to attached to, and now he's wondering whether you called on a draw or to steal or to see what he's going to do and it becomes a lot harder for him to get rid of AK/KQ type hands-he might throw out a probe bet or might check/call convinced you're bluffing.
All of this, of course, is assuming you're winning. Either way, since you seem willing to get your stack in against this guy, this is the best way to do it against worse hands.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps a bit extreme.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why risk you whole stack when the only time he's going to call if your ahead is possibly with the nut flush draw? You obviously can't fold here... I call the flop bet... let him fire another bullet... then I push for any turn card besides a club... If its a club you have to assess the situation...

right now you're are not going to get called unless he thinks he has you beat or if he thinks he has a better draw... when you have the best hand against LAG players you need to let them fire at you then come over the top... let them make a mistake

Just the way I'd go.

[Phaedrus]

Thanks for the replies. My thinking is along the lines of what all of you have said which is why I was baffled by this hand.

I didn't want to mislead anyone but I changed some of the hand details in order to get an "objective" opinion of how this hand was played.

The thing is that this wasn't my hand and it wasn't a 3/6 game. Hero is Doyle Brunson and Villain is Daniel Negreanu and they were playing 300/600 NL live for a televised program.

Negreanu had 88 and flopped a set and he won $178,000 off of Brunson's AA.

I'm sure there was lots of context that I'm not privy to but I just couldn't see how this play by Brunson made any sense no matter what Negreanu had been doing at the table or what his read was.

[SmackinYaUp]

[ QUOTE ]

they were playing 300/600 NL live.


[/ QUOTE ]

[punter11235]

[ QUOTE ]
in order to get an "objective" opinion of how this hand was played.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well you didnt accomplish anything here.
Brunson is capable of going allin here with any draw. His play definitely makes sense here cause he can get a call from toppair or even some other crap. It wouldnt make sense in most 600NL games though.

Best wishes

[lapoker17]

Your supposition that you can just switch around the numbers and players and have the same rules apply is tremendously flawed.

[Phaedrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Your supposition that you can just switch around the numbers and players and have the same rules apply is tremendously flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I should have at least mentioned that Hero has an extremely LAG image as well.

I thought if I mentioned Doyle people would look for a way to justify the play instead of evaluating it on it's merits (and I didn't think anyone would believe that I was playing 300/600 :-)

It still looks to me like Brunson offered 50:1 odds against his stack by raising $3000 preflop and backing his aces with $175,000 more on the flop.

How does this line make any sense even at 300/600?

[Phaedrus]

Just realized that my abbreviated hand history implied heads up play, actually there are 8 players at the table.