"When weak act strong"?

[Orpheus]

I can't deny the wisdom of this at all, but in low stake limit games, not applying this rule gave my BB/100 a very solid boost. In fact, learning not to apply this rule (at low stakes) was probably what let me turn the corner from "equivocal breakeven or low winner" to "solid winner" who expects to clear a profit each time he sits down (I don't always, of course, but I'm surprised and disappointed when I don't -- and I'm sure most of you remember the glorious secondary boost that confidence gave to your game, when you solidly turned that corner, even if you started out lucky.

Don't get me wrong. I know I'm no shark. I could put T. Lobsang Rampa (a once-prominent Tibetan monk) on tilt just by showing the hand he folded to. A blind three year old could outdraw me with a dried-out pen (There seemed to be a bunch of angry toddlers at the tables where I cleared my last bonus -- "U R' and similar phrases always suggest a bare familiarity with the alphabet, and none with spelling).

Still, though I doubt I bluff even once an hour (if that much. It's probably more likely that I misread my hand--an occupational hazard of playing blind three year olds), I find that there is usually at 2-3 players at a low stakes table who have clearly read -and completely misunderstood- Mike Caro's Book of Tells In fact, some of these young guns seem to be waiting for someone to raise, so they can take *our* "transparent bluff raises" as a personal affront to their player-reading skills (Well, what are we supposed to do when we flop a flush? Slowplay to give the board a chance to pair? Sheesh!)

Let me be clear. I'm not picking on Caro. I haven't even gotten around to reading his book yet. It's not his fault that it has a special appeal for peoples with a two digit BB and three digits total hands--who haven't mastered the cashout, but are already checking hotel rates for next years WSOP. I only mention him because an irate disciple took his name in vain at Interpoker this afternoon.

As I said, I absolutely agree that "when weak, act strong" has great merit. I wouldn't be surprised if the next step in my evolution is relearning this lesson which I unlearned the hard way. Poker is like that. A lot.

Naturally, any rule works poorly when practiced poorly, but I'd enjoy hearing some discussion of the rule, and your experiences with it -good and bad- at various levels. I feel like I may be overripe for picking up some subtleties, that I'm playing too straightforwardly. I am getting so fat dumb and happy where I am that I actually caught myself saying "I think I'll keep playing this level for another thirty or fifty thousand hands, so my stats are valid."

Or maybe I'm just overripe because I need a shower.