1/2, $450 effective, 9 handed.

Hero has an aggressive image, probably TAG to villain, if she's even thinking that deeply. 20's WG.

Villain is a 30's WW, playing LAG, small-medium loser, bluffs a little too frequently. Hero only has about 20 hours experience with villain, but has a read on villain, paraphrasing action from a hand exactly a week ago:

Three limpers to villain who raises to $15 OTB, bad TAG calls BB, and fish limp-calls LJ. $400 effective with BB, $200 effective with fish.

Flop ($41): Q 9 3. X to villain who bets $20 and only BB calls.

Turn ($81): 6. X-$40-c.

River ($161): K. BB leads out for $50, villain raises to $175, and BB tank open mucks K T, villain mucks, hero is sitting in HJ, villain's bf whispers "flush?," she whispers back "no, A Jx, that was scary af." Seemed very genuine, and don't think they think anyone heard.

OTTH

Villain opens $10 CO, loose passive calls BTN, and hero calls BB with Q 9.

Flop ($31): 9 8 4. Hero checks, villain bets $15, BTN folds and hero calls.

Turn ($61): 3. Hero checks, villain bets $30, hero calls.

River ($121): 2. Literally every single draw imaginable misses. Is this a great opportunity to lead for $30-$40 with the intention of calling off any bet?

I don't like making plays vs. a read from one hand. If she's going to bluff, she's going to bet if you check. She might not have quite the hand she had in the sample hand to bluff/raise with. Let her stab at it and call her down.

Plus, she might just be able to beat a 9

She has a lot more hands with no sdv to bluff with than not. Betting something crazy like 1/3 pot or below into her really invites a bluff, not only from her, but most players, and she's shown that she can bluff raise her missed draws. Also, on top of this, I think we have the benefit of her just calling her OP's and saving us money.

65 didn't miss. A5 didn't miss. Then there are all the made hands and draws that did miss. You have Q9. Check ainec.

Your reasoning above is insane to me. It's like you're trying to come up with ways to make the pot as big as possible with a bluffcatcher without giving any real consideration to the rest of your own range.

She probably had the nuts in the HH btw and was lying to her BF, so no idea how you can take away anything from that overheard convo which she prob knows you're listening to anyway - and in fact may have done it solely for that reason alone.

+1

X/call
Most likely what happens is you lead and get called by better.
If she’s bluffing, she’ll bluff river and you’ll call = profit
If she’s bluffing, you’ll lead and tbh looks insanely strong and she’ll fold = less profit
If she’s not bluffing you’ll lead, and get called = not profit
If she’s not bluffing you’ll lead, she’ll raise and you’ll call = stuck a buy-in
Don’t base your entire read on a villain based on one hand you saw her play last Tuesday. That’s ridiculous

I might just be overthinking 1/2 and trying to apply advanced concepts to the game. I remember a poster a few weeks ago (pretty sure it was ionutd or DooDoo) said LLinusLove makes this play on a regular basis, and thought this seemed like the right spot to try it out.

Raise inducing is not an advanced concept. It's also very fickle to dynamics and is more of an exploit than anything else. There's another alternative concept to noodle on where you can induce a bet, but granted not a raise, the kids call it checking.

My thought process appeared to be off on this one. I elected to bet $40, with the intention of calling any, but villain tank called and my hand was good. I guess I shouldn't try and take these lines and should just x-bluff catch instead.