So if one of the theories of poker is to only bet to get worse hands to call and better hands to fold should we bet just to win the pot if we believe that no worse hands and better hands wont fold.

Example - 9d10d on the button. Limped pot four players. Flop comes 2s6dKc. Checked to the turn. Turn 10h. Checked to me on the button. What now.

Why bet... I think I'm likely to be ahead but if I bet a king is unlikely to fold a better ten or bigger pair is also unlikely to fold.

A pair lower than my ten is unlikely to call a worse ten is rarely out there and could also find a fold. There are hands such as 7-8 or j-q that could call but its a small pot and in some cases such as tourneys might not like to chase.

If I check the chances of me having the best hand by the river is decreased some way.

So should I bet just to take the pot.

You should definitely bet there. You are most likely to be ahead, and it is possible that a worse hand will call. You won't get a better hand to fold, but if you are called you are last to act on the river and can either see a free showdown or get in another bet if you improve.

If you get raised then you can safely get out - but betting forces all drawing hands to pay for their draws. If you don't bet, there are very cards that you would like to see on the river. If a 3,4,5,7,8 or 9 comes, a straight becomes possible (and they all make a set possible if someone had a low/mid pocket pair). A Q or J make your 10 look very weak. Even a 2 or 6 can't make you happy if someone comes out firing. So your best approach is to bet when you are likely the best, and hopefully get all or most of the players to fold. If you take it down, great. If you are called, you still act last on the river, and it probably won't cost you anymore. If you are raised you can bail.

Bottom line here, there are many worse hands that actually will call, but more importantly there are many hands that will beat you with the next card and you don't want to let them draw for free.

+1

To add: its very unlikely king is out there if its been checked around to you twice. And we likely gained equity on the turn so betting here to take the pot down when we are likely ahead is good. Any gain in BBs from winning the pot is good and even if we think there isn't "value" in betting here b/c nothing worse is unlikely to call and nothing better will fold as clearly explained above we will either win the pot outright or have drawing hands have to pay to make a hand.

+ we won't be put in an awkward situation on river having to fold a hand that potentially had really good equity on the turn

IMO, betting for equity protection in Hold em is pretty rare, and is generally a misconstrued concept for most players who are simply afraid of draws and don't understand value. However in the HH you give, it is likely the correct play.

Yeah, you should bet. Your first statement is generally correct, but there is a little more to think about. If you don't bet, you are letting Ax hands draw for free, and even if there is no way they call, by betting you are at least giving them a chance to make a mathematical mistake, and that's what you want to do. And like you said, there are some straight draws that might call you, and maybe a hand like A6 might as well.

Also just remember that just because there aren't any hands you would call with, it might be that your opponents are donks and will call.

Bet to take down the dead money and be happy about it. Some worse hands could call and there aren't too many better ones out there with the way the hand has developed.

This hand is better looked at from the perspective of reasons NOT to bet in holdem. There are only two reasons not to bet:

- Our opponent has a better hand (or will make a raise we can't call)
- We expect to get our opponent to call bets when behind later in the hand by not betting now

The way the hand has developed, both of these are very unlikely.