Playing 1/3 NL Hold'em at a B&M casino. Apologies if description is a bit light on details; this hand is from a couple weeks ago and details are a bit fuzzy.
Hero table image - hero has been betting aggressively. If hero raises pre-flop (particularly from EP), hero bets on the flop with any equity. However, Hero is folding to large aggression, particularly on the turn and river.
Hero is UTG and gets AKo. Has ~$200. Raises to $12
Folds to Hijack (our villain), who calls. Villain has >$500
Couple more callers afterwards
Flop is A-8-3 (rainbow)
Hero bets $30
Villain raises to $75 (villain made this play against hero once before, which induced hero to fold. villain hasn't played many hands)
Folds around to Hero
Hero thinks and goes all-in
Villain also has AK; result is a split-pot
Question: What's troubling me is whether the all-in here was the right move. I could call the $75 but then I'm pot committed anyway. Further, if I think I have the best hand (which I did), then why call and let villain get to see the turn? On the other hand, if I think I have the best hand, why risk pushing the villain out on the flop with an all-in?