Ok, guys, I think you all are right, and I'm trying to overthink this thing again.

(but, ice, stel, anyone else here playing high stakes, please tell me if you're not happy laying $500 on the table PF holding KK--I'm getting ready to make it "policy," so please tell me if I'm getting into trouble!)

Re-raise policy on KK:

Once the pot is already sweet, hit it hard with KK with willingness to go all the way. I'm talking an exclusionary re-raise here (guideline: about 5 times the initial raise, depending somewhat on other factors). Call the all-in if they do it, even at $500--with one exception.

In my game, there actually is one tight player at least (some of the "once in a while" guys may also fit this bill). He's a little passive for my taste, so he might just flat call a big raise with AA/KK. But, in any case, if I have KK, against him, I'm just going to assume AA and proceed as called for (i.e., without a winning flop, check-fold it).

I really think everyone else at this game is at least under suspicion (until proven otherwise) of possibly coming over the top with QQ. So, if they have AA, so be it. Until proven otherwise, I'm ready to rock'n'roll on KK.

If the pot is already sweet, what I don't want here is anyone drawing to a blasted set. Once the BIG re-raise is in there, there's really no turning back. Anyhow, I think my fear of these murky players make my correct play: Demand immediate clarification. And they're suspicious enough of playing other than AA/KK to the re-raise that I think I have to just take my licks if they do have AA. It's ridiculous to give up on a very +EV hand (if the 10 BB per hand rule can be met, and you get KK every 200+ hands, it's like sacrificing 5 BB/100 in your overall win rate--that's more than I'm prepared to give up for the sake of safety).

Now, the question here is really just what is a "sweet pot" that is ready to go down. And I don't think that's entirely definable by pot-size. I think the question is really more whether your re-raise has you more or less pot-committed. If so, then you just can't give the set implied odds to draw. One thing I could have at least considered with my AA vs. 22 disaster was just flat calling the initial raise. I can't remember for sure, but I think there may have been a limper or 2 who would probably have gone with $15. Now, if I'm in it for $15, I really can get away from my AA to the set--I lose some serious money, sure, before I lay it down, but not my whole stack. And I have a very strong position in taking down a pot of probably $60 rather than just pulling in a couple of limps with a $15 raise to me. So, if the field looks somewhat weak, I think, playing KK similarly in order to actually play through the flop doesn't look bad (on the T52 flop, AT will probably be in for $15, and I win enough from him through my deception to compensate for the amount I lose against the set). An occasional minimum re-raise might be another option once in a while. I'd usually rather flat call a raise than get involved in that kind of stuff, although that's also another option if the field is small, since they pretty much have to call it.

I did notice that a lot of my good KK hands in the old pt database were really the result of PLAYING the hand rather than just trying to settle everything PF. This is probably my current problem, really. I need to just play the hand on the flop more and only shut it down if the PF pot is already attractive.

So, anyhow, I think that's fairly healthy. Don't auto-re-raise KK or AA if the field looks real weak, but if the pot is sweet, be ready to go all the way with both once you re-raise (and be willing to fold KK PF only against a very tight player who simply isn't going to put $100 or more in there without AA/KK himself). And, if you do play it a little slow, it's obviously easy to just quietly go away to an A flop.

Sound reasonable?