[ QUOTE ]
Isn't the aim of poker to take the actions you would take if you were able to see your opponent's cards and to force your opponents to not take similar actions and therefore make "mistakes"? (cf. Theory of Poker, Sklansky)

Therefore, how can you say that I played badly?? I may have had information that you are not exposed to that made me believe I was in front of all villains, and I was right. I played my hand as I would have done if I had seen everyone's cards. My play/read, far from being bad, was perfect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Translation: "It turns out that I was right that I had the best hand; therefore, I was right to move all in."

To the extent this is results-oriented thinking, it can be dismissed out of hand as such. To the extent that it represents a philosophy: "get your $ in with the best hand," it is a misapplication of the philosophy. As it turns out, you had a better hand than either fish, but you were an underdog to the combination of their hands. Recognizing this fact, that you were basically an underdog to any two slightly non-random holdings, should have told you that the correct move was to fold, at the latest to the reraise.

I think the fact that hasn't sunk in for you yet is that your AQ was an underdog to the combination of these two hands; therefore, correct application of the fundamental theorem requires a fold.

But you could not see your opponent's cards, all you could see were their bets; and their bets were representing solid hands. Even granting that they are fish, these bets should have told you that they were holding decent cards, such that your AQ was an underdog to the combination of the two hands, and again, the correct action was to fold.