Roy Rounder knocks my poker math junk around

After reading some Roy Rounder stuff, I got thinking about hand V hand stuff and I came up with the following (most likely easily answered) discussion, but as a stil relative noob I need a little help so here goes........

Hero has o/e straight draw on the flop against Villain, who Hero has put villain on flush draw. So Hero is 14% to hit on turn and 13% on river and 24% for Turn and River. Hero has 6 outs after discounting. Villain is 19% for Turn and 20% on River and 35% for both with 9 outs.
Turn and River:
Hero: 24% or 3 to 1
Villan:35% or 2 to 1

I do realise this is very general but would it be correct for Villain to pay more than 3 to 1 to continue as he has a higher chance of catching the winning hand?

Also, what if hero makes his straight on the flop? As the flush beats him, does that mean Hero's hand is unable to be improved on Turn and River thus making Villain's flush draw more attractive to chase?

Possibly a little convoluted and misdirected but if you can make some sense out of this I really like to know how my thinking is/is not working.

Thanks

Assuming there is money behind in the stacks when a bet is made and there is a reasonable expectation that you can get paid off if you hit your hand and the opponent doesn't hit his both players would be correct to call bets with worse odds than their immediate odds to improve. That's the very essence of the concept called implied odds.

Unfortunately, this sounds like a somewhat special case - if both players read each other well and know the other person is on a draw there might be no implied odds at all. By this I mean, villain or hero might hit their hand, but because it's obvious to the opponent he'll stop putting money in, which means that in the specific case it is possible that they are both unable to call any bet that doesn't give them immediate odds to improve.

What also needs to be considered is that at least one of the two will have some degree of showdown value. By this I mean if both turn and river come and none of them improve - typically one of them will have a higher card to win the showdown. When you describe your hand as a straight draw it's typically not the KQJT straight draw but something quite a bit smaller - when you have a flush draw you are slightly more likely to have an ace-high or king-high flush draw - so depending on what flop you have the straight draw on you could theorise that the flush draw or the straight draw probably has the better showdown value. Across all flops (that allow flushes and straights) I'd guesstimate it comes out in favour of the flush draw about 60/40.

The initial situation was one of a flush or straigt draw on the flop and you mention the case of what if the hero makes his straight on the flop. I could assume you meant on the turn (the next card) which limits the question to one street, but I think you're really debating a different underlying principle so I'll be just as happy to just jump to that.

I think what you're talking about here is absolute versus relative hand strength. It's important to realise based on the board not just what the absolute strength of your hand is (a straight), but also whether hands are possible that beat yours (there are 3 cards to a flush and the board is paired so quads, full houses and flushes all beat me). You combine the two factors to come up with a relative hand strength - I have a straight but on this board it's a middling strength hand and not a strong one. Or I have top set, but because no straights, flushes, full houses, quads or straight flushes are possible I have the nuts. You should never bet money on the absolute strength of your hand - always always keep in mind what the board enables and make sure you are betting on the relative strength of your hand considering the board and the actions of the other players in the hand. Sometimes they will act in such a way that you can consider it much more likely that they have a strong or a weak hand.