Ok - here's the deal. I've been getting burned in these situations. I'll give an example.

I hold KsQs on button

I Bet 3 x BB
one caller

flop comes 4d 8c Kd

caller checks

I bet 1.5X pot

he calls

at this point, I am very sure he's looking for the last diamond.. I can generally read pretty good and I would say I had this guy pretty bibilofied..

Anyways - Here's the questionable play:

I go all in for my full buy in.. we both had full buy in before the hand started..

he calls..

River diamond gived him nut flush w/ Ad 6d

Now this is where I'm questioning this strategy of "trying to make draws unattractive".

I'm thinking that I'm speeding up the implied odds process for them. By putting out that huge bet, it means they are garuenteed to get that amount IF they hit, whereas, if I played it slower then I would have to pay them off to make it profitable. This is reverse implied odds, possibly?

Now - I validate my play by saying "if they miss, then I get paid".. I mean, is that what I should say to myself and bite the bullet and drop the proverbial hammer?

Of course, I think I lose more by doing this, because I remember the bad beats easier then when they miss and I get paid, but I wouldn't be posting this if I didn't question this strategy. I've been right about the person drawing for a flush very often, because I won't usually put a full buyin on the line without a good read.

Thanks for listening.. In short - I'm wondering if super-overbetting is a DETERRENT or an INCENTIVE to the person chasing. I know why it's a deterrent, and I'm thinking it's an incentive because it's a LOCk for a big amount, IF they hit.

Thanks! Comments very welcomed!!