I will make one more attempt at explaining why a call is better than a shove. Even if you don't think calling is best (which I get) then shoving is still the worst thing you can do.
What is 1 thing you normally get when you shove? Answer is fold equity!
So normally when you shove (if it is not for value) then you can expect that some of the time the hands that you beat will fold.
In this hand, against this opponent it is VERY UNLIKELY that a better hand will fold. In fact the only hands that WILL fold are hands we already beat.
So, calling is better than a shove because some of then hands that do this are worse than what we have (worse pocket pairs or misguided top pair type hands that think they are making a move).
Logically, if we shove we will NEVER get a fold from a better hand. We may get some calls from worse hands, though some of those worse hands will fold to the shove.
If we call we keep his entire range of hands intact. Against that range we are better off than we are against the range of hands that calls a shove.
While I goofed the math the first time I posted it, I did make a correction. Against the posited range of hands we are likely enough to win that this would be a profitable call.
The question of what line we take is kind of senseless. It doesn't really matter at this point. If we do not fold here we likely just call down. Calling down is not that different than shoving, except those rare times that this is a bluff will still be in the hand.
Ultimately if we shove and he calls then the range of hands we face is stronger. If we call and he bets again the range of hands we face is slightly weaker.
If that doesn't explain why a shove is the worst thing you can do, then I don't know what will.
I do understand people not accepting the calling is better than a fold (even though they are wrong).
