Sklansky Theory - making someone pay for a draw

[john kane]

right, i have a question.

the way i play both limit and mainly NL, is to make people have the option of calling a bet by which if they hit their outs they would not of been getting implied pot odds by their call as i wont be putting enough later in the pot to make it worth their call. usual implied pot odds theory basically.

however, i read somewhere a person saying that sklanksy states you must make the person pay for his draw.

ive been thinking and dont understand why.

say the pot is $200 at 10-20 limit, on the turn and a guy has a flush draw.

your first to act.

now why, according to sklanksy, if you know he has a flush draw, why must you make him pay for it?

your not offering a bet which means by calling he is making a mistake, and he'l never fold, so he's not making a mistake and you do not gain. the only purpose it serves is surely to increse variance by increasing the stakes on a draw.

by making him pay for his draw, you to are also paying for him to draw (as you have bet on the turn), and if he is correct in calling, then all you are simply do is increasing how much you are betting on him missing his draw, and so simply increasing variance.



the only reasons why i can think id for table image and so your betting patterns are not so readable.

but just a theory thought.

id be very interested in replies