Lolz, pretty much this, or...

3) I like/am friends with the reg who 3B me.

4) Just stacked the 3 bettor

5) Feel like I think I might flop a set

6) Am on a heater

7) Don't know who the 3 bettor is

8) We are greater than 120bb's deep, which I can easily adjust to 118 or less if I need to justify calling

9) I know the 3 bettor is just starting a session and I am deep in one

10) Any other spontaneous reasoning that pops into my head before I can click fold

What bout if we hit set, but dont' stack villian, ex. being you c/r flop and he folds.

I think the joy that you get when you set mine a 3b pot and stack villain's AA far outweighs the lost EV by not folding. Have had some beautiful berating rants from regs on this topic. Plus one should not underestimate the tilt EV that you create when it happens.

I made an assumption we either stack or get nothing from villain 50% of the time each. I know it's a pretty huge assumption but I'm just estimating. Was wondering why people were moaning about me using 12% rather than 11.8% when this white elephant of an assumption was itt.

I don't think we quite stack villain 50% of the time and villain will have bluffs in all these spots from time to time which I was hoping cancels out ignoring all non-stacking postflop action.

Losing your stack when you both flop sets actually make the numbers far worse than you estimate.

That's included in my calculations. The money we lose from not hitting our set is over 10x more than the money we lose set vs set.

88% x -$10 = -$8.8
0.72% x -$100 = -$0.72

This. People don't realize how important meta game considerations can be in the tough 2012 games.

So using your logic. We should lose 1-2 BI hoping to stack him once then him going on monkey spew tilt?

Still sounds -EV to me

Honestly your math is TOTALLY close enough. The people who are nit picking it are sometimes right and actually sometimes wrong.. i think.. but your math (for the most part) is close enough to allow other considerations to make up the difference in call/fold situations (reads and meta game considerations).

I think the real trouble is the guideline you use for set mining. You say you're snap calling any time you can see a flop with a pair for less than 1/20 of your stack but you need your opponent to have strong range for 1/15 of your stack.
It's not your stack alone you need to consider. In the hands you posted in OP you had more chips than opponent(s). You need to consider your effective stacks. For instance you cannot call $6 off of a $1000 stack if the open raiser only has $50 and raised from the CO seat.

I think you are doing a bunch of complicated math but the real trouble is that you started with a faulty axiom for set mining (not differentiating stack size from effective stack size).

I thought this was so obvious I didn't need to mention it
I'm not calling shortstack 3bets looking to set mine

Isn't this 5.88-6.88= -1 since we call only 7$ to continue playing the hand and raising with a small pair and get called is a different situation?

We're still losing $10.

We take in to account the $3 already put in the pot by looking for anything above -3 as EV+. Seeing as folding will lose us $3.