Button in this hand is unknown, but was just stacked in a pot that seemed reasonable.
SB is a taggish younger guy.

.straddled, limped pot, I check 9874s, eff stacks 435
(60) 763cc
X, x, x, x, x, x
(60) 763cc7
X, x, x, x, x, btn bets 35 (cover), call (400), I (435) xr to 110, call, fld
(315) 763cc7Kc
I pot.

I think calling is +eV, but suspected raising might be more +eV. So I took a look using this analysis...

-btn limps 90% of hands
-btn 90% pf range instead of 75%
-btn 100% of 2pr+ flop check range therefore uncapped turn betting range
-btn ships 76 and 73 on turn
-btn calls down with 66 and 33 and all rvr'd dh's
-btn calls all trips and always folds non-fh's to rvr shoves, bet size on rvr is 100

Btn’s range:
90%:(76, 73, 66, 33, 7[A-8][A-8][A-8]!oo!xxyy) 17923 (100%)
90%:(66, 33) 5113 (28.5%)
90%:(76, 73)!66!33 8960 (50.0%)
90%:(7[A-8][A-8][A-8]!oo!xxyy) 3850 (21.5%)

Raising:
eVraise= (fold)(pot) + (1-fold)[(btnshv-raise) + (btn_call_fold_rvr)(pot+raise) + (btncallcallrvr)*(-stack) + (btncallcallrvr)(my_fh_rvr)(pot+stack-raise)]

pot = 130
stack = 435
raise = 75
btnshv = .5
btncallfoldrvr = .21535/44
btn_call_call_rvr = .2159/44+.285

=(.1)(130) + (.9)[(.5)-110 + (.21535/44)(130+75) + ((.2159/44+.285)-435 + (.2159/44+.285)*(130+400)]
=23

Calling:
eVcall= (oppfhtrn)*[(-call*nofhrvr) + (pot+bet) * myfh] + (1-oppfhtrn) * [-bet * nosofhrvr + (pot)(1-no_sofh_rvr)]
=(.685)[(-35) * (35/44) + (130 + 100) * (6/44)] + (1-.685)*[(-35) * (33/44) + (130 + 100) * (11/44)]
=12.3

Therefore I think raising is better than calling. Am I missing some big picture stuff? Are there critical mistakes in the math? Anyone disagree strongly with my assumptions?