[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
My examples apply to all poker games when bluffing on the river. The central point is that your bluffing frequency is not solely dependent on the size of the pot, as your original question was asking. You also need to factor in how your opponent evaluates the probablity that you have a better hand than his.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand your point, but I lived under the impression that game theory works regardless what your opponent does. It should be the minimum of what you can archieve. If you can improve on this minimum by applying judgement (like a read) you go with your judgement of course.

You are claiming that if my opponent never believes me and calls in 100% of the cases then I will get busted. That is true of course, but you never bluff against a calling-station anyways.

[ QUOTE ]
However, in shared-board games like Hold'em where the river card is face-up, your opponent can easily see if you hit that draw or not, so you have to pick other strong hands to represent for your bluffs. These are harder to evaluate (what are the chances that you were slowplaying a set the whole way? That you just spiked a 2nd pair?), so it's much harder to figure out what the optimal bluffing frequency is in these situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I need the image of an unpredicable player to be successful with my bluffs. If I am capable of playing any two cards and truly randomize my bluffs based on the potsize I thought I was exactly that, unpredictable.

I guess I simply need more time to think this through. In poker sometimes it takes a bit to realize the obvious.