As usual the few times we disagree in a thread, the issues are pretty subtle, and it starts with the ranges you've assigned.
There are basically 2 issues that I think call your analysis into question:
1. I don't think the ranges you assigned Villains are necessarily accurate--and here the decision is so close that even little mistakes in assigning the ranges matter. For one thing, you've assigned V1 a range that includes no flushes.
In my analysis I came to the conclusion that the probability we're drawing dead is pretty high. The main reason I think that is because I think
either of our opponents can have a flush here, not just V2. In your analysis you gave V2 5 combos of flushes and 18 combos of other stuff. Firstly I think there are more combos of flushes than you assigned--you don't think V2, described as loose, can show up with smaller suited connectors here? If he can have Q
T
, I think he can also have T
9
, 9
7
, 7
5
, or 5
4
(maybe even some smaller ones but let's stop there). That's 4 more combos. If we toss those in, V2 has us drawing dead 33% of the time.
But now let's say that V1 also has flushes in his range, and let's assume he can show up with a flush 33% of the time as well. Our equity plummets! We're drawing dead over half the time now! Our equity in this spot comes from the times we're up against Jx from both Villains; if we widen V1's range to include flushes this happens significantly less often.
2. Let's put that aside and assume that the ranges you've given the Villains are accurate. The ranges you've given them are the ranges that they can have in this spot. That is not necessarily the same range that they will
call a shove with. I think a lot of the Jx no diamond hands will fold, especially if V1 has a hand like that. But those are the hands that the lion's share of our equity is supposed to be coming from. So
when we actually get all-in, our equity is going to be lower than what you claim.
Furthermore, as to the bolded part above, for the same reason, I disagree that we have the equity to call a shove (if I agreed with that, though, then I'd agree with your conclusion that we might as well shove ourselves). If we check here, a lot of the weaker hands in the range that make up most of our equity are also going to check (especially if V1 has them). So when someone else actually puts a big bet in here, our equity changes because the range of hands they play that way changes, and I think often it will mean we should actually be folding. In particular a bet from V1 should be viewed as extremely strong and we should not have the equity to call it.
Between these two points, I think the decision swings from a borderline, not-happy-about-it shove to a less borderline, but still not-happy-about-it check.