[Nate.]

Superfluous Man --

Those are good questions, but here I'd bet the turn even with very deep stacks. That's because I'm pretty confident that Villain is not checkraising the turn without having us cooked. Getting a showdown is irrelevant when you know you're losing.

I'm not sure it's constructive to be thinking in terms of "% of stack sacrificed" in a spot like this, any more than I'd be thinking of a cash game decision as a semibluff for 1.3% of my bankroll. Are you going to stop valuebetting, or protecting your hands, or making profitable ($EV, not just cEV) bluffs for fear of crossing some stack-percentage threshold?

As far as tournament-specific aspects of the hand... it's mostly that people are looking to get the money in and put you to the decision even more than they would be in a cash game, both for some (rather bizarre, really) zeitgeisty reasons and also because the plays often have technical merit. This turn is an exception, I think, to that, just because he's so unlikely to have a hand or something semibluffable (and you know that) that he can't jam on you too much.

Another tournament aspect of this hand is that it's unlikely that Villain is an expert. Against a really good player you'd need to worry about balancing your lines. You'd also be more inclined to get to showdown. You'd also think that perhaps he was thinking all this and thus able to lead flop + checkraise turn with air. In short, the turn checkraise actually would put you in a tough spot, because strong players will engineer their games to pepper you with tough spots. But in this case, that would require his taking nonobvious lines with a few different types of hands almost specifically to give you trouble in spots like this, and I don't think that's happening. In cash games, where (a) there's more metagame and (b) the players are better, I'd probably rethink some of my profiling.

--Nate