There are sometimes decisions that seem to be effected by the number of BB's at risk. However, I think if we are almost always beat, this sort of logic should be irrelevant. Here are a few examples:

2/5 game
Hero ($500) open to $20 with KK.
3 callers including
SB (60 year old white male. ABC player) with $300 stack.

Flop = 973 rainbow.
SB checks, H bets $60.
SB check raises to $160
Hero shoves and SB shows 33.

Hero says "OH well it was only like 60 bigs!"

I think this is faulty logic because when an older guy check raises into 4 players on a dry flop like this he is basically betting $300 not $160 and we are never winning. Who cares how many Bigs he has, we are never winning. OR almost never winning. Math players will say its only x amount of bigs, but all these wasted BB's add up and if we are almost never winning, we are just burning money, right??

Or here is another example:

To loose players limp from EP.
Hero raises with AA to $30
Both players call.
Flop 5c4c7x
2 checks, hero bets $60
One fold, check min raise to $120 with only like $60 left behind.

Now some of you will say just stick in in there.
But there is really no range here I am crushing, and a min raise with such a small amount of money behind is a pretty strong. Players don't raise on draws very often, even combo draws, even loose players. Lose player just like to see lots of flops, but often go to far with their hands. But usually when they make a raise it is a made hand. He is almost never doing this with a worst over pair. So even thought it is like only 30BBs, we are still wasting money.

So why put money in bad, no matter how much money it is?

Am I missing something here?

I am not a big math players, but I just cant see the logic in saying "well it is only X amount of BB's...." When we really should be saying "Am I beat or not, and what is my opponents range?"

I think in low stakes games, the prevailing perception of your average villain is that he's loose, station-y, and fishy. That means that he's likely to stack off, especially short stacked, with all kinds of crap that should be crushed by an overpair, or TPTK type of hand. So if you're in a situation where the SPR is low, and you hold one of these value hands, it's generally correct to stack off.

No comments on the particular hands you posted. Hypothetical villains and situations don't usually merit much analysis. In reality, villains will get it in with one-pair, or a big draw, or whatever else often enough that stacking off with an over pair every time will yield long term profits.

In other words, if you try to get clever, you'll make more bad folds than you would have made bad calls had you just played ABC

Right, when they are CALLING us. But when these type of villians are raising, I think their hands are pretty face up and we are usually beat. So regardless of the amount of BB's unless its something super silly, I would argue we can still fold profitably, but maybe I am missing something.

The amount of BB in the hand matter because of the affected math. It changes the calculation.

As far as it not mattering, wouldn't you say a 60bb mistake is less of a mistake than a 600bb mistake? They're both mistakes, but I'd happily take nine of one over one. of the other.

In the first hand you posted, the SPR is >10 and an OMC check/raised a 973 rainbow board. Yes, you should fold an overpair. No one who is even a little bit good at poker things that's a good spot to stack off.

In the second hand, you give us no info about the villain. With AA and an SPR of 2 going to the flop, you should be happy to get it in every time. As I said, in this situation, you'll make more mistakes by folding than you will by calling.

You've just answered your own question, but please be warned, if this degenerates it will be quickly locked.

If situation A is blindly put money into the pot and don't consider the factors (range, villain, play style, our hand, equity, etc) then we will often be burning money when we stack off facing a raise on any street in low limit no limit hold 'em.

If situation B is pretty much anything else, where we do consider all the facts that we have at hand, then we will do better.

What you have just asked is 'why are people bad at poker'.
And the answer is, because they are bad. Either because they don't care, study, have discipline, money, time, effort, or any number of 1000 other reasons to be successful.

This game really isn't easy. If it was, everyone would be making money instead of just 10% or less of players.

Yeah, "it's only ___ bbs" is faulty logic, but it can be a useful heuristic that covers some of the range-based decisions we're making.

For instance, in hand 1, this should be a fold. He's effectively going all-in, and we're confident he won't do this as a semi-bluff. Are we also confident he won't do this with QQ/JJ/1010? If so, it's a very clear fold. If he'd do it with a combo draw, with A9, or with 1010, then it probably becomes a call.

Hand 2 looks like a call to me. Not because it's "only 30 bbs," but because there's already $210 in the pot, it'll be another $120 to call this min-raise + the obvious jam, and I think we're going to be good more than often enough ($120 to win $330, so it's close to 3-to-1).

In hand 2, "only 30 bbs" really only matters because it sets the maximum we'll lose when he has the better parts of his range.

Here's a working example from my last session:
It's raised to $8 preflop. One caller. I 3! to $32 with QQ, expecting this will narrow the field to one caller. Instead, two people call behind me, and so does the original raiser and original caller. Now we have a $160 pot (80 bbs). I cover everyone. One player has ~$400, one has ~$170, the other two have ~100.

Flop is 975r. No overcards, great, but that board smacks the hell out of their overcalling ranges. It checks to me, I bet $80, one player folds, the next one goes all-in for another $90, the other two fold.

Like you said in hand 2, most LLSNL players aren't raising with their draws. I'm usually behind here. It's "only 45 bbs" more though. And that's important, because it means I'm getting 5-to-1 on a call. I chose $80 for my bet size to make this a very easy decision against everyone but the $400 stack. So I call, and he shows me JJ. He usually has two pair+ in that spot. But he has a lower overpair than mine, or TPTK, or a spazz play often enough for this to be profitable.

The "only" thinking is just a shortcut. If we're thinking about that and completely ignoring pot size and hand ranges, then we're making a major mistake. But if we're thinking about that as a shortcut for evaluating risk-reward against pot size and hand ranges, then we're on steady footing.