"Morton's Theorem," heh, heh.  Kewl.  I've got to forward this thread to
my mother....  Thanks, Jazbo.

Seriously, i have a couple comments.

First, I also think this _type_ of post is the most fun on r.g.p., and
would love to see more.  It was sort of frustrating that this post
languished for a week before it got its first response while 50 people
weighed in to straighten out the guy who wanted five pros at his table.  
Not only that, but after 50 or so responses, it turns out he had a point
after all.  Anyway, I for one would be more of an active participant and
less of a lurker on r.g.p. if the ratio of light to heat were a little
higher.

Second, I totally agree with Erik's point that while the idea i
presented is mathematically correct, the important question is how (or
even whether) it leads to changes in correct strategy.  As I said in my
post, I think these situations (where you'd prefer some of your
opponents to fold, even if it's correct for them to do so) come up all
the time in a typical game.

I'm not sure how best to demonstrate that, however.  Would it be at all
convincing if i just came up with some more examples of other situations
and repeated the calculation?  I'm not sure, because each time someone
could say, "yea, but what if instead of having 5 outs, your opponent is
drawing dead? then you'd want him in, not out."  Maybe there would be
some way to run a few hundred hands of Holdem Master or something
similar with a calling station in the game.  Then simply ask, for each
call he made, a) did he have correct odds to chase, and b) did his call
cost the leader any expectation?  Would that be sufficient to convince
people these situations are common?  Is there a better way?

Then, if these situations do come up, are they really all that serious?
If i remember my example correctly, player B's fishy call on the turn
can cost you up to more than 5% of your EV when you bet.  That seems
pretty serious to me.  Try telling a blackjack player he's losing up to
5% on some of his bets and i bet you get his attention real quick.

Furthermore, even if we convince ourselves these situations come up
often enough and are potentially costly, then how do we exploit our
understanding?  Are strategic changes (eg, play more drawing hands) more
useful than tactical ones (eg, checkraise the turn in a particular
situation)?  I never would have thought of the implications of this
stuff on table image, but abdul's post makes at least some sense to me
and indicates that there may be all sorts of ways to exploit the things
we've been talking about here.