I have a question regarding example 2:
Suppose our strong, tight opponent leads out from early position, and we three-bet from the small blind. He, alone, calls. The flop comes up J 10 7. We lead out for a little less than half the pot, and our villain calls. The turn comes up 7, and both players check. The river shows a 4, we bet, and our villain comes over the top. He’s representing the flush, but it doesn’t fit.
We know that his range for playing early position and flat-calling a three-bet leave him with strong suited connectors (AK, AQ, KQ) or big pairs (probably 7’s at the least). So we know that if he has hit the flush, it’s with two over cards. That would mean that on the flop he had an immense number of outs. Rather than call—potentially facing a hard decision on a missed turn—a raise on the flop would have been his play. We know that he is a strong player, and a raise would’ve had good odds for the money, gathered more information, or even forced us out of the hand.
Why does the author assume Villain would have raised the flop with strong suited connectors? He's already faced a 3-bet and c'bet. If it costs him slightly less than 1/2 pot then he is getting pretty much direct odds. If he raises and Hero calls then he pretty much has to give up on a missed turn card. So, wouldn't just flatting here be more +EV?
His check behind on the turn definitely supports the story that he is on a draw.