[Aloysius]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If, instead of smooth calling on the flop, OP had raised, would this make the decision any easier?

On this board in an unraised pot I would raise on the flop in OP's position 100% of the time. I am less worried about stacking someone and more concerned with getting my money in when I likely have the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

My read is that UTG+1 has AA or KK and is trying to isolate on the flop. The real question is whether the first raiser have an overset (cataclysmic), a straight (willing to call and take big side pot) or 2-pr (cha-ching).

If OP raises, I think you are still getting your stack in the middle if table image is not a factor and villain's ranges are as I defined above. I think the same result result occurs here.

It almost never correct to slowplay a set. Either somebody's got a hand and will go along for the ride or you will take down a smaller pot. Why give a 3-straight, 3-flush hand infinite odds to draw out by checking? It is a dangerous game to try to let villain draw out a second best hand. I think most villains will give you action with TPGK and 2 pair.

Confucius say, "Better to win a small pot than lose a big pot."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes - so basically you're saying you advocate raising the flop (which OP did not do). I think by not raising (OP, why did u just call the flop?) he does not define his hand and now it's possible that original raiser is making a move with a draw, putting OP in a tough spot after UTG+1 tries to isolate.

It seems, unequivocally, that with stacks this deep, OP can not get away from bottom-set on this flop.