On the flip side of the coin, f you think his range is too narrow to 4bet, then CR bluffing most flops is gonna be spew.
Please point to where I recommended check/raising flops vs. a tight range. Because I'm pretty sure I recommended folding because I think his range is tight. I only said that you can x/r vs. a wide polarized range, which you are assuming he has.
The fact is we don't know what his range is, so we can't make any assumptions about his 3betting range one way or the other. Calling might be ok if his range is super wide and he won't GII with worse hands ever, but assuming that without good reason is a mistake and we should lean towards AK being ahead of his range, since it's ahead of just about everything.
Why? You're just saying we should assume AK is ahead, we should assume 4betting is +EV, but why? Assuming people are bluffing you a lot when you have a tight perceived range (opening UTG) and no information is the real mistake.
Meh. It might be close between 4betting and folding...but calling is immediately -ev since we are going to be folding 2/3 of the time postflop and that's just simple math. We are effectively giving him 2/3 of the pot by calling oop.
What kind of math is that?
So anytime we fold 2/3 of the time post flop, it's automatically -EV? What if we were 300bb deep, and we fold 2/3 of the time post-flop, but the times we don't fold we get his whole stack? Now obviously that's not the case here, but that example just shows that your logic that says, "because we fold 2/3 of the time post-flop it is -EV," is incorrect. There's more to EV than whether or not we fold 2/3 of the time post-flop. Immediate odds, play on future streets, bluffing potential, etc., all play a role in EV.
For example, a) our immediate odds are 2-1. b) it's possible that we make more post flop when we hit than we lose when we hit c) again, if he's wide like you say he is (he has to be wide in order to 4bet profitably), we can x/r and/or x/c flops.