Should you bet with a read that villain is on a straight and flush draw and ahead of you equity wise on the flop while you only have a pair with no other draws? 100bb deep game.

I'm thinking not betting for pot control since villain is ahead equity wise but then again he is also chasing draws so betting has merit for one your protecting your hand and two your betting for value since villain is chasing their draws but as i said you don't want to build the pot too much since villain is ahead in equity so should you bet after they check flop to you or just check back for pot control?

you still wanna bet it for several reasons.

-it folds other random hands that can hit by the river, where as they could have folded otf.

-the equity can change by the river and often does. I mean how many times do you actually hit a draw. makes having any pair good in equity.

-when you c bet it prevents villain from betting into you on the turn so you have an option to bet again (an get many folds if he did have a draw) or see a free river an play accordingly.

-You never know if he had a draw or good pair an you can try to two pair them on dry run outs for sure value calls.

I'm going to assume that your read is close to perfect - he has a big draw with 1/3 of the deck as outs and our pair is about 45% equity on the flop.
But you still have a big advantage - its obvious when he hits.
Based on this you can aim to get enough in on the flop so that you still have just over a pot size bet on the turn. Then on the turn if he misses you shove (and his best play is to fold) and if he hits you fold.
Now the challenge is to ensure you have over a pot bet on the turn and so we have to be careful not to give him a chance to raise too high. But we want to get as much in otherwise as we know 2/3rd of the time we win the money. My guess is we either x/c or make a small bet/call.

I should have added it was for plo, does it make any difference? when i say villain is on a draw its basically a massive wrap with a flush draw etc, that's why at first i was a thinking maybe not to build the pot too much with say just a overpair but both your answer make sense.

but just to confirm if you both still think the same if its plo instead of NLHE?

My answer holds if the draw has 1/3 of the deck in outs and the draw is completely open - ie you know when he makes his hand.

If you read is perfect you want to keep the pot small and take advantage of your information. From a game theoretical point of view there is no point in betting with <50% when Villain never folds. Why should to bet when Villain never folds if you can just check and see if his draws hit, fold when he hits and bluffcatch if he misses.

Flaw in analysis by assigning a very specific hand (or set of draws) rather than a range of made hands/draws. Especially considering you state, "on the flop." Since you have very limited information on the flop I'd highly assume you are making bad reads OTF based on wrong info.

When you say why bet if villain never folds what about because draw equity is just about halved ott to a brick, and we can fold if villain hits?

example

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi Simulation

59,040 trials (Exhaustive)

board: 452

Hand	Pot equity	Wins	Ties
KK23	39.56%	23,358	0
6s7s8dTs	60.44%	35,682	0

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi Simulation

2,880 trials (Exhaustive)

board: 452Q

Hand	Pot equity	Wins	Ties
KK23	60.52%	1,743	0
6s7s8dTs	39.48%	1,137	0

If you are deep and you know when he hits, of course you should bet the flop in pot limit games if you are a small underdog with two to come. Its not close.

what about 100bb?

I don't think you can reasonably quote showdown equity here since he will be unable to call our big turn bet 2/3 of the time, his equity here is more like 1/3. As stated above this assumes we have a perfect read and he is unable to deny us a pot+ sized bet on the turn by raising.

instead of going into a bunch of detail and arguing the particulars of this or that spot, or even debating about if you can or can't put a player on exactly a draw (I mean even if you know you can't range someone to one exact hand you can still benifit from understanding what you'd want to do against a specific part of the range, etc)
I think I know where the trouble is coming from in your logic and I'm just gonna try to plug that little hole..

If you knew for a fact that your opponent had 45% equity on the flop with two cards to come and he checks to you with your one pair; should you bet to "protect your hand or get value from draws or however you want to put it?"
Yeppers.

there are a lot of complications you can add to this but all you really need to realize is;
You will get another chance to bet the turn.

When we talk and think about equity we are talking about how likely villain would win if we stopped all betting and ran the board out.

But, in real life, we can make a bet on the flop that would be a mistake for villain to call. And, if he calls, we can make another bet on the turn that would make it a mistake for villain to call. (this only assumes that we are playing deep enough that you can actually make it a mistake for villain to call)

And no matter how you add it up, you can't add two negative EV calls together and magically get a +EV call out of them.

If you are not deep enough to bet flop and make it -EV for villain to call to see one card, let alone two, then you are not a favorite in that hand and your betting cant make you a favorite in the hand and so you are a dog and it doesn't make any sense for you to try to "protect" a hand that is a dog. You still may be able to profitably jam because villain may make a bad fold and because you have enough equity to put your money in in a +EV way regardless but the situation has changed when you can't make your opponent make a mistake AND he has better hot and cold equity.

If this seems confusing, just remember, because of the dead money that is in the pot it is not always the case that either you or your opponent would be losing money by putting your chips in the middle relative to folding and giving up your equity share of the pot.

Make sense?

it's all about spr