[Garland]

[ QUOTE ]
If you "know" he is only going to call this pre-flop raise with KK-QQ then why make the large raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously I don't know he has KK or QQ when he first raises, so that is quite silly. His call of the re-raise gives me a bigger clue to his holdings. Secondly, SB called so it's entirely possible that the original raiser will fold and SB will call. This sequence of events is also ok, and in fact better for me as I have position and SB could have lesser cards than the original raiser.

[ QUOTE ]
Were you just afraid to play the hand out of position?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely not. I know to a certain extent the range of his hands. I'm praying for a raggidy xxx flop...one where I can check-raise all-in and expect a call from an overpair. Instead I'm given a flop where I'm screwed against the range of hands I put him on due to his tightness. Literally, if he has KK, QQ or AK, I've "lost" (AK will put me to the test by the turn or the river when I stop betting after the flop).

[ QUOTE ]
In that case I think you were better off just pushing pre-flop if you were going to give it up on the flop so quickly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Entirely silly statement. Raising all-in will make all hands except the case AA to fold. Of course I want action with my AA, but I want to make them pay. I want KK and QQ to re-raise me pre-flop thinking I'm FOS. It's the horror flop I didn't want.

[ QUOTE ]
However, if I am the villain I bet the flop here almost every time when checked to if I have a missed set or AK/AQ to see where I am at.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all I don't believe in the slightest that villain has AQ. Secondly, if he has AK, then I'm going to be screwed (see above). Obviously if I increase my villain's range of hands to include more pocket pairs (JJ, TT, 99 and such) then betting the flop would be correct. I just didn't in this case.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Garland