How do you rationalize this?

[PantsOnFire]

We wall know about implied odds in NL holdem. One of the best examples is playing a PP in a deep stack situation.

A common rule of thumb is that you generally need to win about 10 times the amount you are paying pf given the odds of flopping a set and the addition of the times you do flop a set but lose to a higher set/full house, flush or straight.

However, sometimes we will win a lot more than 10 times our cost. We can stack bad players, we can turn it into a full house, sometimes several opponents stay in the pot making it larger, etc. We can also sometimes win the pot without improving or by turning an unlikely straight.

So if this is true, then the times we don't win a pot large enough to justify the play would still average it out to be a good play none the less.

Now I still do believe that entering the pot without the chance of winning the required pot (i.e. against a short stack) is mathematically wrong.

But my question is: can this be applied to other implied odds situations like calling for a draw? In other words, if you call with a draw against the odds and don't make it up with implied odds, can this be justified by the other times you hit your draw and make more than the implied odds require?