[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
total blank or no, any time you are sure your opponent will call you, it doesn't make sense [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

true enough.

[ QUOTE ]
my take is that "optimal bluffing strategy" is really a tool to be used exclusively against players superior to yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is pretty much an accepted fact. Sklansky points it out in TOP.

[ QUOTE ]
if you have any decent idea whether a player is more or less likely to fold based on his past behavior in similar situations.... "optimal bluffing strategy" is anything but.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, optimal is always is optimal -- by definition. What you mean is that it is not always maximal: Against a poor opponent, you won't be making as much as you could be. This is a nitpicky point of semantics, but worth pointing out, since optimal is a kind of reserved term from the world of game theory.

[ QUOTE ]
and if your opponent usually knows when you are bluffing, "never" is the correct bluffing frequency against that opponent. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true. The whole point of using a randomized bluffing strategy is that your opponent cannot possibly read you. On the other hand, if you were speaking of playing live money, and if you have some ridiculous tell -- like turning bright red whenever you bluff -- then you are right. But even in that case, you can always make your move without looking at your card (in the case of stud) or without looking at the board (in the case of holdem). All that matters is that the odds against your bluffing match the pot odds. You don't even need to know your own card to accomplish that.

gm