Over pairs giving me a headache

[LovesADraw]

Had a couple of decisions last night with over pairs, I think they're both pretty similar so have bundled them both together.
The table I was playing had one solid reg and the rest of the players were pretty much in it for the gamble:

Hand 1:
  in the BB playing £160 in a £1/£1 casino game
2 limpers and the BU makes it £7, I 3bet to £26, only the BU calls
   
I c-bet to £46 and the button shoves for £120. I tank and decide their range is mostly draws shoving their equity. I call and villain tables  (what a flop...) and rivers the 4 for the straight and that's the first stack gone...

Hand 2:
  in the SB playing £320 in the same £1/£1 game, the solid player that I mentioned is in the BB.
CO raises to £7, I 3bet to £21. Both BB and the CO call.
   
I c-bet to £55, BB calls and CO folds.

I lead again for £75 and BB shoves for £250 and the CO folds. As I say this is the solid/good player at the table so I do believe he also has bluffs in his range. I have taken AA and KK out of the range due to the preflop action so I call. He instantly tables the KK and (thin brags) I river a Q to take the pot.

I see these as very similar spots with the over pair to the board but obviously we were up against very different hands.

Should I be getting it all in the middle in these spots? Or do we have reasons to fold? Both decisions are very much reliant on the assumption the AA and KK would have been 4bet preflop like 90% of the time in these games. am i relying on this too much?

[WotRTheChances]

I wouldn't say these spots are overly similar.

Hand 1 you're playing £150 effective vs a player who has iso'd two limpers and then flatted to a 3-bet in position, thus his range can be fairly wide (even wider considering you've not said this is the 'solid' player). Therefore when you c-bet £46 (which seems a little large, but fine) and villain jams, he can be doing it with a pretty wide range of hands which partially connect with this board, 86s, 67s, 56s, 89s, any FD, even some 8x or pure 6x hands, all of which you beat, so I don't think it's close. Pretty unfortunate to run into a hand which has quite so much equity vs you, but getting it in is absolutely correct.

Hand 2 you're playing £320 effective vs the player you have described as solid and this villain has cold-called after you've 3-bet the sb (I would personally 3-bet bigger than £21 from the sb in a reasonably deep game). I think villain is going to have a much stronger range than the range i perceive the villain in hand 1 to have, I wouldn't expect someone to show up with AA/KK very often in this spot, but certainly 66-JJ, AQs, KQs, QJs type stuff a lot. The portion of this range which calls a large c-bet and jams over a turn bet on a brick I think is very rarely worse than QQ. I'd expect to see a lot of sets, maybe some JTss, TT, JJ which you beat, but i'd be weighting his range more towards sets than TT/JJ assuming most people just flat the turn with these non-nut hands. I'd certainly consider checking the flop, certainly if I were IP i'd do so a decent % for pot control/deception. If I were playing this hand vs someone who I didn't consider solid i'd be fine getting it in here (not loving life, but punters wake up with some random stuff enough of the time to make it profitable)

[shipitgood]

Hand 1 is a call, Hand 2 is a fold.

With hand 2, outside of AA KK which he could have very seldomly, he has all sets and this move is seldom, if ever, a bluff.

He has 1010 or JJ here almost never. When he jams it's curtains for our Queens.

[George2Loose]

Try not to post results straightaway. It just clouds people judgements (not saying that the replies u have had so far are just in general)

[Rexas]

Be pretty tempted to check jam hand 1, but I'm definitely looking to get it in.

Hand 2 basically what Thigh said, I'm surprised to see him show up with KK but I'm not surprised at all that we're losing, and I think I'd prefer to check the flop. Problem here is we just lose the pot on a bunch of turn cards, and also on a bunch of river cards if we go bet/bet, and villain can have pretty much all of the good stuff here. No shame in knowingly folding too much when you have a range disadvantage, because no-one is going to exploit you for it, especially in a live game.

[Derbylad]

Hand1:
I feel like our sizing on the flop is a bit much, 46 into 54 playing 132 seems a tad large, but we're doing nothing more than getting it in as played.

Hand 2
I feel like again our C-Bets are pretty big here. 55 into 65 playing deep? I feel like you can tone your sizing down a lot for pot control.
Our second C-Bet is then entirely contradictory of our sizing's in both of the hands. We've C-Bet 85% on the flop and are now going for a 40-45% lead on the turn?
I feel like if the BB is competent they' be reading this as weakness and should be jamming a lot of their range to put you in these pressured situations.
The reverse of this is if we perceive the BB to be competent and are therefore choosing this bet sizing to induce...however... this board connects with a lot of his suited rundowns  / medium pocket pairs and as Matt has stated I feel like checking for pot control may actually be the better option.

As played I don't see why the BB couldn't have AA,KK in their range here. After you've 3 bet the button, cold 4'ing out of the blinds looks really strong. A competent player would certainly be aware of this and balance their range by calling your 3 bet with their top 5%.

[PaintingByNumbers]

There's no good reason to pot control in Hand 1.

[SuuPRlim]

HI JP

[LovesADraw]

thanks all, I take on board what you're saying about getting over 300bb in with an over pair and the comments about good players disguising their holding by not 4betting the massive hands.

also re the comments on the sizing; the players at this table were really not good (with one exception as I say) so every time I hit a hand I was going for maximum value. Players in this game call far too wide on every street so it pays off far more often than the times than I value own myself.