50-100 shorthanded AA hand.

[neon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I am going to play a big pot I want to be raising it not calling it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why? I think the opposite.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Villain is described as "overaggro to the point of being bad," so I see no reason to take the initiative away from him on the flop. AA is an absolute monster four-handed; let villain keep firing, as he will do so with countless hands that hero has crushed.

If you come over the top and take the betting lead away from him, however, you'll likely only get the money in on later streets if you're behind.

Evanski has the A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], so a spaid turn wouldn't be an absolute disaster. I like a smooth call on the flop, hoping for a K, Q or J to fall on the turn that will make villain top pair (wishful thinking, I know, but if he has AK/AQ/AJ/KQ/KJ/QJ and hits top pair on the turn, we get his stack), and then raise his inevitable turn bet all-in.

An argument could certainly be made for a reraise preflop, of course, but if villain is one of the three players I'm thinking of, I think I'd rather let them do the betting for me postflop.

(By the way, the 50-100 NL game was craaaazy good for a while yesterday while I was watching; did anyone else see Erin-whats-his-face tilt off about $50K or so to Mahatma in the span of half an hour, tops? Backing second and third button w/ his stack, CR-bluffing the turn into the nuts w/ pure air, just effing unreal. One hand Erin raises pf, Mahatma reraises, flop Jxx, Erin pots it, Mahatma minraises, Erin calls. Turn pairs the board, Erin pushes, Mahatma instacalls, Erin has J8o for jacks up Mahatma JJ to scoop $40K or so. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img])