This is without KQ, obviously (didn't see it listed in the stove range posted):
Code:
Board: Jd 5s Tc Ks
Dead:  

	equity 	win 	tie 	      pots won 	pots tied	
Hand 0: 	18.182%  	17.40% 	00.78% 	           268 	       12.00   { AcAd }
Hand 1: 	81.818%  	81.04% 	00.78% 	          1248 	       12.00   { JJ-TT, 55, AQs, KJs, JTs, AQo, KJo, JTo }
With KQ we get up to 34% equity. Imo, we can't rule out KK (not included above) because people are bad and we can't rule in KQ completely either. The problem with the stove ranges is that they're not weighted. Let's say there are 12 combos of KQ. Does he check/raise the turn with KQ? Yeah, sure. Some of the time. All the time? No. Since he's an unknown we have to consider the typical villain at these limits. The typical villain manages to both overvalue (when it comes to calling) and undervalue (when it comes to betting/raising) draws.

The bet is effectively $3.4 into a pot of $3.22 (less rake of $0.50 or so when the pot is assembled). We need to win 3.4 / (3.4+3.4+2.72) = 35% of the time to be breakeven.

Depending on the how this particular villain plays we may be as low as 10% equity (only made straight and sets check/raising), somewhere in between at 35% equity or maybe as high as 50% equity. But we don't know. That's why my previous post and some of the others focuses on the absence of reads as a key here. You simply cannot put together a reasonable range for villain here. Well, you can - but the conservative range contains only rare KQ hands and only two pairs hands SOME OF THE TIME. But I'll ignore that for now.

You could try to even out those situations, throw in a bit of trash here and there and argue your way to a point where I have to admit that you may have 35% equity or thereabouts. Ok. Now fold.

I hate to quote myself (I lie, I love to quote myself) but I have to repeat this: Do not put money in the middle if I cannot clearly argue why it is +EV to do so.

In this situation our reasonable ranges for our villain suggests we have somewhere in between 10% and 50% equity and we can't really tell because we don't know him. If you put the money in here, you are GAMBLING. You don't KNOW your edge, so you don't know if you have any. Stop putting money in.

If you can build a strong case that you have 35% equity here (which I doubt) you get exactly the same in terms of EV from folding and calling. $0. Do you want your bankroll to be hit hard by random fluctuations, or would you like some kind of influence on how it moves? If you are tilted by bankroll growth or negative growth it's probably best to take the variance reducing fold on that basis alone.

So you have the choice between a low variance play (that may prove when you get better reads to be more correct) or a high variance play with the same EV. There are reasons for picking the higher variance play when you move up to better opposition because it will help your image etc etc. At the microstakes this won't be the case and at the microstakes players are generally so weak tight that you simply do not have 35% equity and calling is actually both -EV and very swongy.