[electrical]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I conveyed my point about IO so let me try again here.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps a better term for what you describe is implied risk rather than implied odds. You are controlling the implied risk by being prepared to fold later. It seems clear to me that the implied odds for Hero are negative, since he has represented a stronger hand than he holds. Thus opponents' decisions will be based on that possibility, and opponent will likely only put in a lot of action with a very strong hand. Conventional implied odds positions presume that opponent will not suspect that hero has a strong hand, and will be willing to put in a lot of action regardless.

[ QUOTE ]
If after Phil made his initial completion, the TT guy said "Phil, how about you agree now to just put in a bet dark on every street and we will run out the cards?", it is 100% certain this would be -EV and Phil would be better off folding.

However there is some pot size where the case above is -EV but a 3rd street call of the TT's raise is +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but this ignores the fact that so much of the money Phil could get out of the pot began the hand in his stack already. If he builds a pot with his own chips and then plays for it from behind, he's playing bad poker (or gambling). The criticism isn't of the one call of the raise on Third, but of this as a general approach to poker -- put enough money in as a dog that you are marginally justified in calling some more bets later. It seems like a plan to lose the maximum and win the minimum.

I've found myself in this position before, and it sucks. It's like paying vig on money you already had.