Yeah, you are right about the flatting. I admit that cold-calling was the worst part of the play for inviting the blinds, and for the reasons you add. I have been more concerned about whether to play all-in once I have flatted and there was a re-raise. I think it was mistake to cold call, and then marginal either way to call or fold once I made that mistake.

I do still want to emphasize, that it's not as if you should never think about people's tendencies beyond their range. My point is that some people throw up range calculations as if they were definitive (not accusing anyone though). For example, many of have seen that hand when Dan Harrington three bet with 62o or something in WSOP. I would never include 26+ in his 3 betting range if i was playing against him, using a normal calculator. However, a more sophisticated calculators could include that hand in his range but with a frequency much below its natural frequency distribution, and it would be correct to do so. What I am saying is that additional information not only tells you ranges, but can give you more specific information about distributions within a range.

You are saying that I am over-estimating someone's ranges, and will fold too much. I wasn't saying you should fold every time someone 3 bets, because they might have aces. In fact, my criticism of calculators is true for over and under-estimating equity in terms of naturally occuring distributions. I am very much saying that, for most players, someone is less likely to have weaker hand in their range when they shove for most (but not all) of their chips then when they shove all of their chips, even at times though the ranges might be similar. You can easily over or under estimate your equity by assuming a natural frequency. Calculators don't account for this, but you could create calculators that did.

Many people can correct for this estimational error by "varying" the range over several different calculations, including some weaker hands in one calculation and not including them in another calculation. This gives you a feel for how sensitive your equity calculation is to your read. If you read is slightly off and it makes a big impact on the equity than that is good to know, but if you read is slightly off and it makes no impact that is also good to know. Both variational methods and using non-natural distributions are about creating distributions of distributions to get a feel for your averages and variances.

And yes ginger, you are right about AKo and AA, but I mentioned that in my analysis that AK is more naturally occuring than AA. The calculators already take that into account, however, so it's not as if your effect and my effect cancel each other. One if accounted for, and the other is not.