[rockin]

[ QUOTE ]
ignoring the retarded part of this thread: rockin I think you're being results oriented, and your assumptions are just not accurate enough of the time for this to be +EV

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with that. Largely sure utg+1 would fold (he had folded to quite a few reraises except when he opened for larger bets). CO questionable, but he had been trying to get involved in pots that utg+1 had been opening. SB's range is pretty accurate. CO is the only factor possibly swinging this to the negative. Thanks for the response. I was pretty much more concerned with finding +EV spots and my quick math made for a questionable move. Not worried about the results (even if a loss). Felt pretty confident in my reads.

Afterwards, doing the math, I couldn't believe how close to neutal EV this was (excluding the CO from the equation). CO definitely makes this -EV. Thanks.