[YoureToast]

I'll reply in more detail later.
Appreciate the post.
However, you have misjudged my intent. The only question here is "whether you can justify making a bet when you are first to act" -- I perceive those who have checked to have acted. In other words, my question here is narrower than you perceive -- I am only talking about situation in which you are first to act (in the blinds). I think the question of whether to bet on the end after its been checked around is a similar, but slightly different question.

With that said, my intent is not to insist that counting outs in this manner is the "only" thing that is relevant. Just as we all make judgments about whether our true outs are good or not, here too you would need to make judgements about the validity of your decision. "Outs" and "pot odds" are just factors in this assessment, so while I agree with your points, you sort of missed my point.

You mentioned that what I'm talking about is a "semi bluff". You are absolutely correct. So maybe my statement would be better framed like this: "In deciding whether to semibluff from first position, you should add 4 outs for every 10% chance there is that everyone behind you will fold and calculate whether pot odds justify a bet given these outs."

In other words, I am trying to put some empirical data behind a decision we all make everyday. The more people that have to fold, the more difficult it is to assume they all will fold, thus the percentage decreases. This is self-evident. The statement is probably only relevant in heads up or 3-handed play, which, in my game -- Party 15/30 -- is a frequent, I mean very frequent, occurrence.