I have to say a few things about this-- while i cant totally disagree with redhouse's logic on the matter, i strongly disagree with limp reraising aces, almost EVER, except in the situation where you are on an ultra tight aggressive table, and if thats the case, you should just get your ass up and leave, because why would you bother with a table like that. From this it logically follows that you should basically NEVER limp RR aces, because if you are somewhere where thats a good play, your EV there is sideways at best...unless maybe you have good reason to beleive the game will change in short order.
Okay, that said- First off, i think that at loose tables, the limp-RR is sideways EV. The reason for this is that very often, if you limp and get another limper, you will very often not see a raise at a table like that (those tables are often passive anyway)... Lots of people wont even raise AK if they see 2-3 people already in a pot, and 88-99, and probly TT arent raising, and AQ sure as hell isnt raising...Maybe AKs or JJ-AA- otherwise, you are looking at a 6 way limped pot with AA, and your 'strong play' has just turned into a gargantuan screwup. Of course sometimes the limp-RR works really nicely, and then it was a strong play.
However, my opinion is just that the cons outweigh the pros in the end (Unless, like we established you are at a very TA table...).
The first thing that it does it it says to everyone 'hey ya'll! I have KK or AA! HA!! Your fucked! nyanya!' ... any player worth his salt, even a loose one is going to know exactly what you have, and there is a damn good chance that the KJ that you wanted in the pot soo bad will flop a J and muck his hand unimproved on the expensive streets. Thats exactly what i do in the face of a limp-RR.
Secondly, i must confess that i dont entirely understand the big thing about forcing opponents to make mistakes. If I have AA in 1p and limp, and 3 people limp behind, one guy raises, bb calls, i three bet, right?
Okay, so now the limpers have to put in more money with crap hands, right? Fine, but 5 people in, assuming they will call with one bet in already, they are getting 7.5/1 (right?) on thier calls! How is this a mistake? Isnt it a much bigger mistake for 55 to cold call a raise with a dominated hand, than it is to endup in a monster pot with that holding? I mean, correct me if im wrong, because im not much for math, but i think the bigger mistake is the cold callers and not the limp-RR callers once the pot gets huge. From what i can tell, building up a monster pot with AA is actually going to cause the chasers mistakes to be not as bad as they otherwise would be.
Also, if your at least at a somewhat loose table, you can be assured some callers, and you are a heavy fave to win an avg/midsize pot, and thats cool. However, while you are still getting decent odds in a monster pot, losing a pot like that is an absolute disaster, and in addition to that, once the pot gets big enough, your almost guaranteed to have to show your aces down because of the odds the pot is giving you, even if your about 90% sure you are no good. Its kindof like the opposite of implied odds. I never knew what reverse implied odds were, but if thats not them, then it should be.
So in conclusion, my basic argument is:
(a) Limp-RR with aces CAN be okay at a very specific type of table, but you shouldnt be at that table unless you have a pretty damn good reason to be there.
(b) It announces your hand way too much...the worst i have EVER seen anyone limpRR with is queens. And that was exactly ONCE in my entire poker life. I personally have done it once with 44 (drunk of course), once with AKo, and once with JTs (in a 9 way raised 4/8 pot, just for fun- flopped a boat there! muahaha!) Every other time its been AA.
-This decreases your payoffs- i.e. postflop, your winnings are minimized, even though your pf winnings are maxed.
(c) It builds a pot big enough that it makes your hand very hard to lay down except in the face of the ridiculous action or an obviously bad board (4 flush for ex.)
-Thus, it maximizes your losses
(d) It seems to me that it mitigates the severity of your opponents mistakes (if there are a fair amt of callers anyway) because they will be getting 7-8/1 to call there, instead of 2/1, 3/1, etc.... it allows people to put good money in after bad money.
(e) When it fails it is an EV disaster to the point that even if the benefits when its pulled off to perfection outweigh the detriments of the failures, failure is bad enough that any one or two of the above con factors, would in my opinion push the play way into the realm of plays that i would almost never make, except in scenario (1) in which case id probly go look for the nearest strip club or glory hole and hemorrage my money off that way instead of sweat it out in an eagles nest or a rock garden.
Whew! Okay, theres my comprehensive thought on the matter. Sorry to subject you all to that, but hey, you guys asked for it! Off to go running. Without a shirt of course.