This is probably dependant on the type of game your playing, Ring or Tourney, and in a Tourney it also depends on your M, but I was wondering, in any of these settings, if you can for sure put a single opponent in a HU situation on a draw, and you've got a made hand, say TPTK, obviously it's +EV to bet in such a way that you price your opponent out of the draw, giving him poor pot odds. So would you rather bet and hope to get called, knowing that you're going to win about 66% of the time, or would you rather bet (possibly larger) so that your opponent is more likely to fold? Sometimes I find myself in this situation and I don't mind giving him bad odds but not so bad that he folds, and letting the cards fall, If the scare card hits I'll let it go, but if it doesn't i'll get two good sized bets out of the villian. I guess I'm not really asking for any specific strategical advice, just more of your mind set in these situations.

in a cash game, you want the call every single time, because in theory you don't have a stack that you need to "protect", because if you get busted you can rebuy...early in a tournament, i would prefer that my opponent fold, because the risk of having to gamble for all your chips is often not worth the reward of doubling up since i can find better spots to get all my money in, but later it really doesn't make much of a difference because the blinds are so high compared to the stacks

You want to bet as much as he'll call as long as that's giving him improper odds to do so.

If your opponent is 4:1 to hit and he'll call 1/2 pot (getting 3:1) but not more you want to bet 1/2 pot. If he won't call more than 1/4 pot (getting 5:1) you can't profitably bet. If he'll call 3/4 pot (getting a bit over 2:1) that's a better bet.

The trick is you need to be able to put your opponent on a specific draw - some will draw to an OESD with a flush draw on board - so that you know which are bad cards for you. You also need to know what your opponent will do with a missed draw - say an overcard falls that doesn't make the flush - if he'll bluff there and get you to fold your pair it'll affect the profitability of how you play the hand.

Brag sig?

********

seriousli, I love psujohns answer
and have nothing to add to that., for now (Edit: But, I see someone else did and I agree...._)

psujohn's answer is good.

I try to maximise my EV on every decision. It's too situational to go much deeper.

If villain has a draw but you know he'll shove the river regardless of whether he hits or not (assume you are clairvoyant, so you know his exact hand) it's far better to check the turn and call a blank river. Giving a free card is the best decision in that situation.

If you know villain won't bluff a busted draw then giving a free card is terrible.

I would rather villain call with a draw than fold if he's getting incorrect odds, and vice versa.

One other consideration. You know that your opponent is drawing. Next level: does your opponent know that you know? If he can't figure out that you know that he's drawing, you may be able to induce him to bluff at the pot on the river if he misses his draw. If I am reasonably certain that villain will move at the pot when he misses, then I want him to call on the turn and bet accordingly. I don't mind if the villain makes a correct call here since I am setting him up to make an even larger mistake on the river.

edit: This is what I get for being a slow typist and watching Enterprise while i read the forum.

That part is not true. Any bet that he calls is profitable, and any bet that he folds to is also profitable.

If he has a 20% chance of winning then every dollar that you get him to call is worth 60c which is certainly profitable. If he folds then you get the 20% of the pot that was his "share".

If he won't call without the correct odds than he will only call if you bet a small enough amount that the 60c per dollar profit is less than the 20% of the pot share you can get by making him fold - but that's OK, it just means you want to bet him out since that's how you maximize your profit.

Simple example:

Pot is $100, your opponent has a 20% chance or winning, you have an 80% chance. One card to come, assume the loser will fold on the river (or that the cards are face up - ie. no implied odds to consider). Obviously if your opponent will bluff a missed draw this is all wrong...

If you bet $10 he'll call which means you win a $120 pot 80% of the time which is $96. Minus the $10 you bet leaves $86, so by betting $10 even though your opponent is correct to call you win an extra $6 over checking it down (in the long run).

However if you can bet enough to make your opponent fold you win the whole $100 and since $100 > $86 that's a much better option..

Once your bet gets to $34 you prefer the call since 80% of 168 = $134.40. Minus the $34 and $100.40 > $100 (obviously the extra rake will kill that

My long winded point, is that the bet that makes your opponent fold is the most profitable option if the opponent will only call with correct odds. But if your stack isn't big enough to bet that much, then betting as much as you can (even though it's correct to call for your opponent) is more profitable than checking it down. So in fact all bets are profitable - of course you want to make the most profitable bet not just a profitable bet.

^^^

yea, I read it too fast. this is a good clarification.
just because opponents aren't making a mistake calling doesn't mean betting is bad

I also like what Simo said, if he'll shove when he misses, betting the turn is pointless.

They always hit on me so I don't want them drawing.

i know that feeling.... if you got a draw.. u got me beat...

Very good analysis.