I'm sure there's a sticky or a classic link somewhere - I'm an NL guy looking for basic limit concepts.

Example: I raise AhKh and get 3 callers. Flop is KT7 with 2 spades, so I've got TPTK but am dodging a ton of draws (JQ, 89, spades). I can't bet to make draws incorrect to call, so betting doesn't cause a draw to make a mistake. Do I bet anyway? If so, why? Is it just for value vs. Kx, recognizing that we can't protect vs. draws?

Assuming you want sell your car thats worth 20k for 20k. After one month you still own it. Do you go down with price or give it away for free?

Alluded to in the metaphor above, but if you check they get infinite odds on their draw, if you bet they still get very good odds, but not infinitely good.

People call down with A-high over here.

its the beauty of a fixed betting structure. Lots of hands should by default go bet/call - bet/call - decide. This is because the bets u make on flop on turn are so small relative to the potsize on flop and turn. So most kind of draws are incorrect to fold.
The guy with top pair still should bet ofc, cause he likes to get that fraction of a bet of value rather than no value. (as chacky illustrated so nicely) Whether he can make an opponent make mistake or not is besides the point from this players perspective.

Sklansky had a theory about hands like these. I think in hepfap there was an example where you would check here and bet or raise a safe turn. The theory behind it was something about better protecting your hand and getting slightly more value if somebody on turn bets inferior hand. There are several issues here so..

I think it has been since proven to be better to just bet. The simple examples in this thread prove it.

I think Sklansky's example was a different situation. If I remember correctly, Hero is facing a donk bet from an aggressive early position player (not a blind) while on the button, and with the blinds still in a big pot on the flop. Hero's hand was good enough to raise but a raise wouldn't be big enough to force out any draws (even mediocre ones I think). So hero's reasoning was the aggressive early position player would likely bet the turn again and then hero could raise it for value/protection.

You are betting because you have a large equity edge.

Suppose Villain has a flush draw and 1/3 equity. Then:

Hero bets/Villain folds > Hero bets/Villain calls > Hero checks/Villain checks

If you bet than Villain will almost certainly call and he will be correct to do so. You would like for him to make a mistake by folding but that isn't very realistic.

But at least you forced him to put some money into a pot where you have 2/3 equity. The alternative of checking allows a free card which is even worse than betting and being called.

This simple example is characteristic of a wide range of limit poker situations where you cannot win without the best final hand despite being well ahead on an earlier street. The cards will decide who wins pots like this and there is nothing you can do to alter that. This is unlike deep stack big bet poker where almost all pots can be won by force of betting if you are willing to take a big enough risk.

The art of limit poker is to increase the pot size as much as possible when you have an edge while minimizing your investment when you are behind.

Nothing to add here but this should always be in the limit players mind

Unless you have some specific way you can think to protect your hand, even a little, you should just bet. There are A LOT of way this hand could be played from the flop on depending on your opponents and your goals. Also, there are usually some draws, even on draw heavy boards, that probably should fold due to things like reverse implied odds, but will call when you bet so let them make the mistake, while getting your value.

I have used that Skalansky just a few times the last 10 years and the reason was a bit different and not sure if it was better, just feeling like a possible thing to do in the situation I was at.

Normally, you would bet to make everyone pay; giving them a free card would be horrible; with ace or king with a weak kicker one might do it the most likely, but not necessarily with a turn raise idea though that is one strategy like heads up.

The Skalsky is something more commonly done at PLO where it's in one way and the other well known and sometimes used for the reason that there are so rare turn cards that would not suckout that the flop bet/raise might be -EV.

Limit plays totally different from nl; nl players nit a lot and play too tight, both being the way nl is played but at limit it's about not giving free cards when ever reasonable and that's what it usually is. The limit bet on the flop is so small that it doesn't count for nothing but making people to pay and mix up with whatever one might have. At limit one bets and bets and the exceptions are few and part of the general strategy and adjustments. At any reasonable level you will face multiway situations only when all have like strong hands and you can see easily from the flop and the amount of players if you are beaten or not. Skalsky book is about superloose games and is as often as horrible as its sh and hu advice, that are just about as bad texts as ever written.

The caller loses money on each additional bet that he puts in the pot, even if it's a profitable call. He would rather you did not bet.

uh, mind=blown. Care to give (or point to) an example of this with some math behind it?

You're on the button, your cards are face up, and you have a gutshot. The pot is absolutely massive. Your opponent has his cards face up and he has an overpair.

This is LHE, and he can only bet 5% of the pot. If he bets, you have a profitable call. Do you want him to bet?

I guess infinite odds are better than really really good odds.