[PygmyHero]

I think you present an interesting thought, though from a somewhat dubious source, as a previous poster pointed out. However, I don't think it's fair to dismiss the argument out of hand because of that.

I think this idea could have applications, but I think they would be fairly rare. I play mostly online, and the types of players I 'wouldn't mind losing to' are also the types who tend to not stay at the table. Therefore it might in some cases be harder to get that money back from them. In contrast, the tight player is a lot more likely to stay IMO.

I think there could be additional meta-game benefits here. If you flash your rags when you fold, people will know you can make a play for the pot (a bluff raise! mon dieu!), and may be more likely to pay you off in future hands. However, online this won't work unless you call the river bet (making your plan even more expensive in the short term).

So maybe this is more applicable to B&M, a point you imply in your OP.

In any event, I feel that situations where 'influencing the winner of the pot' in such a manner where it is longterm EV+ would arise so infrequently that players would be better off studying how to play in a more frequent situation (say TP on the flop from a variety of positions). You're going to make the most money by making correct decisions in common situation, and there's just no way the situation you describe is common.

Lastly, even if this would be EV+, which I am not convinced of, I think it would be very marginal.