Originally Posted by zachvac
What were stack sizes in the hand? If they all had average you just folded the second best hand in poker only 30 big blinds deep. In fact, you are 17.746% to win (courtesy of pokerstove).
If we pretend everyone has 6000 (avg. stack), you put in 1500, 4500 to call, the pot is already 6k+6k+1500 = 13,500. You're getting exactly 3:1 to call so you need to be 25%. So the call isn't profitable if their hands are face up. But say you think it screams AA so much that you're up against aces 80% of the time and QQ+AK 20% of the time. Against those you are 55.703% to win. Meaning your combined equity would be 55.7*0.2+17.8*0.8 = 25.38%.
Therefore even if this is QQ and AK only 20% of the time (and remember AK is more likely in terms of number of combinations than AA) it's profitable for you to call here. If you think he does it with AA or AK whenever he gets it (and other guy has QQ), your equity is almost 40%, getting odds by far when you only need 25%.
I'm absolute sure Zachs figures are probably dead on. HOWEVER!
Zach is a very accomplished ring guy, and this is a tourney. Different dynamics are at play in a tourney, and although the odds are the same, the results will not be. You don't get into a tourney for the never ending 'long run'. You get into a tourney because and precisely because it has an end! Ring is continuous practice, where tourney's are performance.
If you believed villain had AA, and thus you had 2 outs, I applaud this particular laydown.
One of the tricks to tourney play is to avoid as much as possible 'Life or Death' decisions where someone else is doing the driving. . And while a nice triple up (using Zach's assumptions) would be nice, death here would not.
I would also guess, in this particular case the unintended consequences of showing those kings was beneficial to you . Probably gave you table respect which hopefully you understood and capitalized on.