NL2 JJ, led into

Hi Donroops,

Preflop: we can raise bigger here given the poster (10c).

Postflop: As played we have to look at villain. What do you know about SB?

Based on his stack he seems fishy so he may do this as a bluff/semibluff or weaker pairs. So in general I am calling at least 1 street with our bluffcatch unless villain is super passive.

Hi bogdan,

Thanks for all the replies and advice!

Ok, I think i'm beginning to understand this bluff catcher idea. Never actually occurred to me. I guess as I've just been trying to not call, as i lose all my money there, I forget calls can be profitable.

So question is, when would one actually lead into someone, lets say if we were in villains position, and our villain was a loose passive. I'm guessing If we hit TP on a wet board, to protect? Also how would our action change depending on villain.
We have TPGK, on a wet board.
If villain was a maniac, we lead, villain raises, we shove?
If villain is a super nit, we lead, villain raises, we fold?

I guess i'm trying to figure out the points when calling as a bluffcatcher becomes unprofitable/profitable

Originally posted by donroops
Hi bogdan,

Thanks for all the replies and advice!

Ok, I think i'm beginning to understand this bluff catcher idea. Never actually occurred to me. I guess as I've just been trying to not call, as i lose all my money there, I forget calls can be profitable.

So question is, when would one actually lead into someone, lets say if we were in villains position, and our villain was a loose passive. I'm guessing If we hit TP on a wet board, to protect? Also how would our action change depending on villain.
We have TPGK, on a wet board.
If villain was a maniac, we lead, villain raises, we shove?
If villain is a super nit, we lead, villain raises, we fold?

I guess i'm trying to figure out the points when calling as a bluffcatcher becomes unprofitable/profitable

You are welcome !

Leading and bluffcatching are two different things. We bluffcatch by calling.

We don't really want to lead out just to protect. Usually protection is a byproduct of something else. For example, if we have TPTK we bet for value but protection comes into play as well because we protect versus draws. However the main reason is value.

So a perfect example would be:

SB - US
BB - fish
MP - regular that opened (passive)

Lets say we called with 55 and flop is 569 hh so pretty connected.

Now I want to lead here for value (to avoid a flop that gets checked back) and isolate the fish for ourselves. I also get protection from the various draws that villains can have here (but first and foremost we get value from them).

As far as the maniac/nit argument you are mostly right. We don't really want to go broke against someone that's nitty because chances are our hand is not good enough. And the converse is true for the maniac guy.

Ok, going back to the original hand, when are we not calling to bluff catch?
Against, some one less fishy? We are profiling a fish that makes plays with little sense, and tend to bluff more right?
So i guess against a tighter player who is paying more attention this might be a straight fold. Or even a raise.
I'm missing something here...confused.

Originally posted by donroops
Ok, going back to the original hand, when are we not calling to bluff catch?
Against, some one less fishy? We are profiling a fish that makes plays with little sense, and tend to bluff more right?
So i guess against a tighter player who is paying more attention this might be a straight fold. Or even a raise.
I'm missing something here...confused.

Well yes, as soon as the villain has the potential to bet with worse, we are bluffcatching with our second pair here.

So against a tight guy that rarely bluffs and just bets strong draws or made hands we are behind too often and can't really bluffcatch so it's a straight fold.