[fishyak]

This thread just won't die. It is good to see the serious propeller heads break out their slide rules and work out the EV numbers. But live, not a single propeller head can or should try this math quiz.

Even if the math shows this line to be EV when totally speculative guesstimates about the liklihood of folding are included, I think the best that you can say about this play is that it is "read dependant." If I put myself in the Button's position after being hit with the c/r, and I review the board and my opposition, I have 3 possibilities: 1) Classic 2 pair c/r, but that is really inconsistent with probable PF holdings. You didn't cap my 3bet PF.
2) A set of 88's? My leading "worst case scenario."
3) A play of some kind.

The pot is working its way to big and for 2 more BB, I get to see a showdown. LP also has to act before I do. Sets are rare so if I get bit by one, so be it. To me, the fact that you played tight before is not enough by itself to make me fold. Have you EVER been tricky at the table? Do I think that you are good enough to choose this hand to be tricky and make your tight image pay off after hours of tight?

Because this board does NOT tell or sell me on a good reason to fold, and because of my absolute position, unless LP 3 bets, I call your c/r and call a river bet. I smell a play or draw. If it is two pair, my ace gives me good outs, and if you have the set I'm now down yet either. I call down.

But I admit I am putting myself in Button's position. Your read may allow you to appropriately put a higher estimate of the liklihood of getting your opponents to fold and be correct. That issue is totally read dependant and no one who wasn't there can really argue against your personal estimate that two folds are possible.

But if I sit on the Button, I'll pay to see your cards.