As you folks know, I had been thinking a lot about how to avoid getting into the losing end of these AA vs. KK battles, particularly with deep stacks (wherever that is supposed to begin).

And ice's "power play" hand with KK imo provides a really great way to do this. On that hand, the "laying down KK" remark of his opponent is particularly interesting. I really think it puts enormous pressure even on AA simply because you look so much like you've flopped a set (or trips, on the board ice had) since you just limp-called in EP.

Anyhow, I'd just like to generalize a bit here, assuming stacks of at least full buy-in (a short-stacked raiser obviously makes the limp-re-raise much more attractive with KK, but again, dependent on situation). I actually applied a similar play tonight to double up with my KK, with pretty much the same play, just a different position (I was in LP and called a loose raiser rather than re-raising).

But first, in EP: I really like the limp-call with KK idea, particularly within the context of my own general strategy, because a limp-call from EP typically will mean suited connector or little pair. KK throws an interesting variation into the mix. What you do want on the flop if you're going for the check-raise is a fair degree of certainty that you're going to get some kind of continuation bet.

I really think this move works great against almost all kinds of opponents. If you have a very tight raiser (increasing the likelihood of AA), then you get a big bet and a reasonable likelihood of someone folding the best hand. The checkraise looks very settish here. Against tougher LAGs, on the other hand, you have decent chances of getting a call with QQ or such as overpair.

The only real downside I see is that you let AK (or AQ, etc.) hit the ace for free, but all that means is that 1/6 of the time, you've wasted your KK--but at the same time limited your risk for the other 5/6.

I really think flat calling a raise in LP with KK has pretty much the same effect. You still win the pot against AK 5/6 of the time, may get a continuation bet on AK unimproved, may be up against AJ or AQ that hits (my double-up was against an AJ that spiked a J on the flop and called my all-in). And you have at least some fold equity against AA, I think, if the player has any weak-ish tendencies. At least you don't NECESSARILY get stacked here.

What I'm not entirely sure about is whether one can really apply this play if you're the initial raiser--e.g., you raise in MP or LP and get hit with some kind of re-raise. That scenario at least dramatically changes the way the hand is likely to work, and there's probably no way around just knowing your opponent in order to play the hand well.

By the way, at a very raisy table, I've applied the similar limp-call idea on QQ and JJ and felt pretty good about it (can't remember getting a huge hand out of it). Basically, if you pretty much know they're going to raise for you, I don't see why you shouldn't just let them make the move rather than get into a tough spot with QQ, which may be up against A9 or may also be up against an overpair (obviously less likely if they're raising hands like A9).