Standard?

1. Yes, I can see how the ad hominem tone may have come across. Not my intention, and more the result of impassioned writing/analysis. Sorry to TT or others if this came across contrary to my intent.

2. As far as the effective pot odds on the turn go, I didn't mean to disregard them. I agree with you that given a 113:80 hand distribution (or whatever), plus drawing live some percent of the time you're behind, it clearly gives you the pot odds to call down (though you need to fold the river UI).

My point was more that in terms of analyzing the likely range of hand possibilities, the BEST CASE scenario was 113:80. A more realistic Bayesian analysis would honestly chuck hands like KJ, KQ, and ace-rag, and probably in a best case scenario have TT drawing live but behind villain nearly 100% of the time.

More to the point, raising the flop allows you to do a much more precise Bayesian look at the turn, which is why I think it is valuable to raise the flop than to take a call-down approach.

One of the great problems of SSH is that, much like the war in Vietnam, getting too focused on pot size gets you incrementally involved in hands you should dump on the flop or the turn. If you call-down the flop and turn, a lot of people probably instinctively call the river in a "big pot", hoping that the maniac has A2o or whatever.

Pot size thinking has to be complemented by board analysis and putting your opponent on a range of hands. Just b/c the pot was capped preflop doesn't mean that you're going to showdown with AQs, and I think that a lot of read-dependent analyses just bootstrap you into justifying terrible decisions.