I think I see what you're saying with the contradiction--namely, if you're leveraging the pot on the flop heavily, then you don't have to do it PF.

Anyhow, (I'll get back to that issue, which I think is right) I was also thinking that with 300 BB ($3,000 in a 5/10), you could actually even get by with re-raising even SCs to about $150 (as well as all of the suggested re-raising hands, although I think I'd exclude AKo from the re-raise range, as I'm just not comfortable playing TPTK for 300 BB--but leaving in AJs-AKs).

Back to your point, I don't think the implied odds on setting are as big as 300 BB in a normally re-raised pot. Say, for example, $50 in a 5/10 with 2 callers. You have a pot of around $150 then. If raiser pots it or close to it, like $120, you raise your set to maybe $400 at most (at least normally). Well, AA might call that, but I just don't see making it to full stack by the river unless unimproved AA pops you back again--as I don't see a good player really doing.

I think you're right, though, that the two options don't work together. It's more one OR the other. Taking the $150 pot again and a bet of $120-$200 from the raiser (a lot of players I see do like overbetting their overpairs), you CAN start to get it in if you raise pretty far out there to like $700 on sets, draws, overpairs and TPTK (AK), some of which you'll lay down, and some of which you won't.

I don't think you're going to get anywhere with these overbets if you just do them on made nut hands, though--on the flop typically top set. Anyhow, if you do it that way, you're risking the following: You put in $50, then win only $300 when AA just lays down to the horrendous overbet. And you have a lot of hands in there that are 7.5:1 to hit. I think the SCs hit a straight draw a little more than that, but it's more like 5:1 or 6:1 still, so you're not gaining much ground if they just lay down. On the other hand, JJ "hits" a little over half the time as overpair, so you're also getting some folds on the top end if AA just automatically lays down.

The re-raising idea I think works better if the raiser is already fairly loose and/or tends to trap with AA rather than pushing PF. If we look at it statistically, let's say each of the other deep stacks is raising maybe 5% of the time, and you're re-raising all of the above to about $150--with the intention of making a CB. Roughly 10% of the time, then, one of the deep stacks is raising, and roughly 10% of those, you re-raise. So, it's happening about once every 100 hands. If they have AA, then they really need to leverage it so hard that you can't play, and you've lost you're $150. But at the same time, it's going to take them a good while to catch on, I think, and you're putting a LOT of pressure on the low end of whatever their raising range is.

I suppose also a more fundamental question is whether, vs. a deep stack, you really are even striving to play for stack all at once or whether you're trying to just chip away at them by playing better--hopefully taking a $1,000 or so chunk out of them when you set against their overpair. But the downside to playing that way is that the risk of getting oversetted starts to become very severe: If you're winning $800 or so if you set vs. their overpair, it takes a LOT of power out of your sets if you're getting stacked for $3,000 when they have top set to your middle or bottom set.

I almost think that might means that SCs gain in value over and against middle and low pairs: If you're drawing to the straight, you're at least never drawing dead against top set.

Well, all this is still a bit nebulous to me, but those are my initial thoughts.

Agreed--and I hate to admit it, but I do like Sklansky/Miller on that one.

Please bear with me a bit, because I'm still a little fuzzy on this thought, but I'd like to back up and ask what one is really trying to do with deep stack vs. some deep stacks. I had kind of been fixated on playing for full stack when possible, but you actually normally want to avoid that and instead chip away at them a lot (the re-raising strategy is also in that spirit, along the lines of kent's point 1).

What's also critical as defender (kind of a PLO issue as well with AA) with a big hand against a pretty gamy big stack is that they can't put you on AA with a re-raise: If you re-raise to $200 with $3,000 stack depth, that's the same as raising to $40 with $500 stack depth--i.e., not all that much.

If they can put you squarely on AA (or even QQ-AA) with a re-raise, any PP (and possible SCs) can still call that re-raise with the intention of attacking not only the boards they hit but also pretty much any raggedy, semi-coordinated board, of which you pretty much know the re-raiser can't have a piece of them.