Awful Roy Cooke article - what am I missing?

[Clarkmeister]

In the Dec. 20 Card Player, the normally dependable, thoughtful and otherwise excellent Roy Cooke wrote what appears to be a flat out incorrect article. Not "it depends", but simply wrong.

The setup is this: In a $30-60 game he limps with a suited ace, and it comes back to him for 2 more bets in a 7 way field. The correct play is irrelevant, what is relevant is how he justifies his thought process. Here are his two general points, and I am paraphrasing. Please pick up the article and read for yourself if you want quotes.

1. When it comes back to him for 2 more bets (after he has already limped in), his EV on a fold is -$30.

This is clearly wrong. His EV on a fold is zero.

2. He can make a -EV call of $60 more dollars because the effect of that negative call is offset by the fact that he increased his EV of his initial $30 from zero to something more than zero by staying involved in the hand.

This is wrong again. If the call is negative for both this hand and his overall range of hands, then he should fold. There is no such thing as using sunk costs to offset the negative cost of a current play. His initial $30 limp is totally irrelevant when deciding whether or not to continue.

Anyways, I was surprised to see something that appears so blatantly incorrect come from the esteemed Mr. Cooke, particularly considering the high regard that Sklansky holds him in. Am I missing something here? Did I misread what he was trying to say?

Thoughts?