[7stud]

It's always better to win a small pot now, then lose a big pot later.

No other possible outcomes there? The idea in poker is to maximize your expected value(EV). In order to do that, you have to take into acount all possible outcomes and their probabilities of occuring.

You said he slowed played badly, and now it seems you just believe slow playing is bad play. Some of us believe slow playing has merit because we believe all the extra bets you win over time by slowplaying add up to more bets than the one pot you lose when your opponent gets a miracle card. It's a question of long run profit versus short term gain. It's much the same principle as staying for a flush draw if the pot is offering you the right odds. You're going to lose the hand more times then not, but in the long run you will maximize your profits because when you do win, the amount you win will more than make up for the bets you lose when you miss.

Based on sam h's choices, I would say A and D. If the opponent was rolled up with Aces, I think the mistake was not trying to win the pot when PP paired his door card. The risk of trip 3's and then making a pair for a full house is certainly there, and may negate the conditions for a slow play--namely what your opponent is drawing to is likely to make a second best hand. I think the play D was wrong too: at that point a raise wasn't likely to make PP fold, and why not get more money in the pot when you're ahead.

Of course, the opponent could have been slow playing a pair of Aces, and then when PP paired his door card, he suddenly found himself in somewhat of a predicament, and therefore just decided to check and call and wait to see what developed. Then when he caught an Ace on the end, he went ahead and raised.