Inplied odds: Incorrect to bet 1/2 pot when villian is on a flush draw

[AA suited]

Flush draw- 4:1 odds of making it by the next card

if you bet 1/2 pot, you are only giving him 3:1 odds, so it should be incorrect to draw.

However, how does implied odds affect that? (for both limit and NL)

[mattw]

implied odds are not an exact science. you are anticipating what will be in the pot at showdown. will your opponent reraise? are you/he drawing at the nuts. can you/he miss the draw but catch something to make a winner? if you both miss who wins?

its alittle more straight foreward in limit. in NL, its easy to make the draw very unprofitable.

[PoBoy321]

If you know he has a flush draw, it's easy, just don't pay him off when he hits and you won't have to worry about giving him any implied odds.

[ohnonotthat]

But making the draw unprofitable is not your main objective here.

You want to bet enough to make it incorrect for him to call but not so much that he'll fold. (This assumes that you are stone-cold sure he does indeed have a flush draw).

I'm speaking a little out of school here; I play very little N-L but I do know that if there is (for example) $100 in the pot and I know my flushing opponent will call as much as 50 to draw to his hand I do NOT want to bet 51. (I'm assuming this is a cash game; there are other considerations if this is a tournament).

As I said, N-L is not my thing, but there is some wisdom in occasionally betting an amount small enough to lure your opponent into playing back at you.

The respondent who stated that implied odds are not a consideration if you "know" your opponent's hand is, of course, absolutely correct; they don't exist.