I cannot completely agree with you.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, one thing he is overlooking here is that there isn't more complex mathematics than he has NOT dealt with that takes into account your image, your opponent's image, whether you believe you opponent's image is "real" or "projected", and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's purely psychological.

[ QUOTE ]
If I know that an opponent who perceives me as a maniac will bring the hammer down on me in a NL game with a big re-raise if he's in the BB and I make yet another 2.5 x BB raise from the CO and he holds a range of hands X, Y, Z, but if he perceives me as a tight wad he won't make that play unless he holds a range of hands X, Y, then I can couple my mathematical calculations with the psychological aspects that are going on at the table. Furthermore, I can say "I believe there is a 70% chance that I have successfully portray the image of a maniac to him", and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would have to be an extremely passive player. He could reraise you out of the BB with absolute garbage if he feels you're putting a play on him. If he's observant, has you pegged as a maniac because you're trying to steal the blinds too often, he may just be putting a play on you. One of the reasons not to steal the blinds too damn much in a cash game. If you do it every single time it's folded to you on the button, don't be surprised to see that play made by the BB with air. What does that do to your math? Not much, but it does tell you about the players psychological make-up; he's not as passive as you thought he was, or he's more observant of what you're doing than you thought. I've yet to see a tight-passive player that I could consistently steal his blind without him having to have the nuts to reraise me. If you keep slapping at a man, eventually he'll slap back. It's human nature, not math.