This is one of the best plays I've made in a long time

I'm really really happy with how I played this hand. Based on reads solely.

PokerStars Game #1837291606: Tournament #8387558, Hold'em No Limit - Level III (25/50) - 2005/06/05 - 11:32:34 (ET)
Table '8387558 58' Seat #3 is the button
Seat 1: Mumm_Ra (2490 in chips)
Seat 2: Roedog (4242 in chips)
Seat 3: Billiebob (1755 in chips)
Seat 4: amhudcol (3020 in chips)
Seat 5: dwarfman1990 (2920 in chips)
Seat 6: TigerPanda (1795 in chips)
Seat 7: tae290 (698 in chips)
Seat 8: KrizKris (1850 in chips)
Seat 9: arzCARDZfan (655 in chips)
amhudcol: posts small blind 25
dwarfman1990: posts big blind 50
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to dwarfman1990 [:Ad: :Kh:]
TigerPanda: folds
tae290: folds
KrizKris: folds
arzCARDZfan: folds
Mumm_Ra: folds
Roedog: folds
Billiebob: raises 200 to 250
amhudcol: folds
dwarfman1990: calls 200
*** FLOP *** [ :Ah: ]
dwarfman1990: checks
Billiebob: bets 350
dwarfman1990: raises 350 to 700
Billiebob: raises 805 to 1505 and is all-in
dwarfman1990: calls 805
*** TURN *** [ :Ah: ] [:Qh:]
*** RIVER *** [ :Ah: :Qh:] []
*** SHOW DOWN ***
dwarfman1990: shows [:Ad: :Kh:] (a full house, Sevens full of Aces)
Billiebob: shows [:Ac: ] (a full house, Sevens full of Aces)
dwarfman1990 collected 1768 from pot
Billiebob collected 1767 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 3535 | Rake 0
Board [ :Ah: :Qh: ]
Seat 1: Mumm_Ra folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 2: Roedog folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 3: Billiebob (button) showed [:Ac: ] and won (1767) with a full house, Sevens full of Aces
Seat 4: amhudcol (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 5: dwarfman1990 (big blind) showed [:Ad: :Kh:] and won (1768) with a full house, Sevens full of Aces
Seat 6: TigerPanda folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 7: tae290 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 8: KrizKris folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 9: arzCARDZfan folded before Flop (didn't bet)

Unfortunate split at the end, but hey, I'm happy.

[homerdash]

Well done sir. The only thing that could've been changed is the amount you check-raise him. Did you only minraise there in order to get him to come over top of you? If so, kudos!

Well done sir. The only thing that could've been changed is the amount you check-raise him. Did you only minraise there in order to get him to come over top of you? If so, kudos!

Yep, I knew he didn't have a 7 or AA, so if he did have a good hand, it wasn't beating mine, so I wanted to squeeze as many chips out of him.

[vqc]

Well done sir. The only thing that could've been changed is the amount you check-raise him. Did you only minraise there in order to get him to come over top of you? If so, kudos!

Yep, I knew he didn't have a 7 or AA, so if he did have a good hand, it wasn't beating mine, so I wanted to squeeze as many chips out of him.

How did you know? Had he been betting and pushing his TPNK recently? Or was this one of those . "I KNO IT. HE DONT HAVE NOTHING!" plays?

Well done sir. The only thing that could've been changed is the amount you check-raise him. Did you only minraise there in order to get him to come over top of you? If so, kudos!

Yep, I knew he didn't have a 7 or AA, so if he did have a good hand, it wasn't beating mine, so I wanted to squeeze as many chips out of him.

How did you know? Had he been betting and pushing his TPNK recently? Or was this one of those . "I KNO IT. HE DONT HAVE NOTHING!" plays?

He was a set in stone blind stealer. Raises 5xBB on the button or CO if it's folded to him, then bets pot on the flop if he is called no matter what he has. He'd at least did this 4 times before.

He's a bit like Rippy with his raising rag blind stealing, except he has no-idea how to play post flop. If he would've checked behind on the flop, I would've been very weary of a monster.

[vqc]

Woops i read it wrong, I didnt see you check it to him on the flop. Goot play.

How do you think the play would have developed if you had led out instead on the flop? Would you have been able to trap him in the same manner? Or was the check to him a check for information? Is that evne possible?

Woops i read it wrong, I didnt see you check it to him on the flop. Goot play.

How do you think the play would have developed if you had led out instead on the flop? Would you have been able to trap him in the same manner? Or was the check to him a check for information? Is that evne possible?

I have a feeling that if I were to lead out on the flop, he would just push immediately (he wasn't the brightest spark), leaving me with a pretty tough decision, I didn't want that.

So by checking him, I could see if he was going to put out one of his standard blind steal follow-up bets that he generally does with nothing, then I could min-reraise him hoping to build a pot with the hand that I am pretty sure is the best one. Or if he does do something different (like checking behind), I would just proceed with extreme caution.