I Assumed that the villain would call down when trailing in both situations, and that the hero would call down in both situations when trailing, and that neither opponent would outdraw the other if theyre behind. I understand that these assumptions are not realistic, but I wanted to keep the analsis simple. The model I used to show that calling the flop and checkraising the turn can be better than 3betting the flop and leading, is very simplistic. And Im sure many of my assumptions are questionable. The message I was trying to convey is that calling the flop and checkraising the turn can still be a better strategy than 3 betting the flop and leading turn even if we assume the hero calls down that nasty turn 3 bet every time against an unknown. I think my model does a decent Job of showing this.
About the difference between 4.4sb and 3.9sb being too small to be relevant. I completely disagree with this one. Over a 1000 simluations of this situation, that would be a 250BB difference, and since many players are playing 10,000 hands or more per week, this difference is significant.