|
|
 Originally Posted by knaplek
Have been doing a bit more thinking about post 3. and realised that the whole concept I'm trying to get across can be expressed far more simply:
"Any action that is 'good for your range' against a well-adjusted opponent must also be profitable in isolation"
Why? Because if your action isn't profitable then your opponent doesn't need to adjust to it, as he can now make more money against this hand, and the same against the rest of your range, by not adjusting.
ok, but say we make a bluff that is in isolation break-even
we haven't shown down hands in the same situation before
if our bluff gets called, it will make our opponent suspect that we've been bluffing a lot more in the previous hands when we could have just been running well
because poker is a game of incomplete information we can manipulate our opponents into thinking they're being exploited when in fact we're bluffing a small percentage of the time and betting for value a large percentage of the time
or the opposite can be true
we can make a river bet that is break even at best to make villain believe we are going for really thin value every time, when in fact the hands we haven't shown down were bluffs
|
Reply With Quote