open-completing with AA from sb, if we know bb will raise

[Wynton]

Simple, theoretical question.

Say you have AA (or another powerhouse hand) in the sb. It's folded around to you. And you KNOW that if you open-complete, the bb will invariably raise. Under those circumstances, is there any reason not to just complete?

[Spartan1983]

I can't think of any. Do you complete, let him raise and just call or 3 bet? If you call it's obviously to c/r the flop. I say you let him raise and you 3 bet and go from there.

[waffle]

dumb answer: if you know that if you raise, the bb will invariably 3bet.

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
dumb answer: if you know that if you raise, the bb will invariably 3bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

But a fair answer. I guess I should qualify the player a little further. I'm assuming that the bb is not ultra-aggressive, but more like a TAG, who recognizes that open-completing is usually a sign of weakness. So for purposes of this question, he will not invariably 3-bet pf, if we raise.

[imitation]

I could see doing this as a real screw ball play, call in SB, call the BB raise and lead the flop.

[Poldi]

For this villain it surely is the best play. You know he will raise your complete so he does it with a random hand. With AA you have a huge equity edge so getting another bet in preflop is very good. Often he has to call the flop, sometimes he is confused and calls you down all the way. He will suspect you have a monster but he doesnt know it for sure so its not like he will fold the flop everytime he doesnt hit very hard.
I dont think you win more postflop than you do by limpreraising him preflop. Get the money in when you have the best of it (and AA vs 100% sure looks like it)