In hand history threads I often note opinions to the effect that against an unknown or in the absence of specific reads it's safer to fold in this or that spot.

Every time I read this my head automatically says: Be that guy. Be the unknown guy. Unknown image = fold equity = bluffing is more profitable than normal.

I know it's starting a session with high variance plays, but am I completely off the mark in thinking that bluffing as an unknown should normally be +EV if you can do it with a realistic range? (Assuming you can avoid tilting the times when it doesn't succeed)

As far as I can see it doesn't really matter much if you're going to settle into a LAG or TAG style as the image you are looking to exploit is neither LAG nor TAG but rather 'Unknown'. It could probably be argued that TAG pays larger dividends in longer runs, but for now I'd like to concentrate on the possible exploitation possible when you think you have the 'Unknown' image.

I realize that any value there might be is dependent on at least two factors:
1) What is a typical unknown at these stakes? (at higher stakes unknowns might be assumed to be aggressive and bluffy enough that the common wisdom is 'against unknown - call' rather than 'against unknown - fold'.)
2) Has there been any indication at all that the villain involved is likely to have had 'against unknowns - fold and find a better spot' hammered into his head?

Am I mad?