I was reading Ryan's DNR blog and came across the following post where Ryan picks up AA and decides he wants to take down the pot on the turn by intentionally overbetting. His comment (below) was that it was suboptimal since it made it too difficult for villain to pay an incorrect price. But the question is: is the "optimal" play always the optimal play? Is locking up a pot ever better than risking the loss of a bigger pot? What conditions would need to exist to justify NOT not making an optimally sized bet (as in slightly the wrong price to villain).
T1, Hand 30. After the gift of a turn uberblank on a draw-heavy board, I overbet the turn to seriously charge for the villain's apparent draw. He folds, and it was a suboptimal play because I didn't bet so he could make a mistake on the turn, but with my run of late, I really just wanted to take down the pot.
Here is the hand history