A conjecture for discussion

[TRBNGR]

I think SpeakEasy is refering to the phyiscal mechanics of betting and is likely correct in my humble opinion. To clarify I think my original statement needs to define an 'action' better, e.g. call bet/raise fold.

[royaltrux]

I think Gus Hanson does a good job of this as well. If you watch he'll count out the chips the same way most of the time and take about the same amount of time.

[ACW]

I think this is very situational.

In a tough game, I think it's usually optimal to mix-up your play.
In a weak game, I think it's usually sub-optimal to mix-up your play.

Within either game, I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions.

[nate1729]

If you mean that *all* actions are the same every time, of course it's suboptimal. If you mean that *any* action is the same every time, it's not necessarily suboptimal. (Folding to an all-in bet when you hold the only hand which plays the board, for example.)

[dansalmo]

Statements that contain the terms "always" or "never" are very rarely true.

[AnyTwoCanLose]

There are plenty of opponents that are so unobservant that mixing up your play is unnecessasary.

There are many times that betting strong hands and folding unstrong hands is optimal.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
Statements that contain the terms "always" or "never" are very rarely true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Therefore, your statement is rarely true, but then ......

[fimbulwinter]

NLHE, blinds $100/200. your stack is at $200 which is the max buy.

ten handed, you are dealt 23o UTG. there is only one correct move here and it is correct every time.

fim

[YoureToast]

[ QUOTE ]
This statement is both obviously true, and so general as to be useless. Sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is so obviously false, its disgraceful.

[dansalmo]

Adding the word NOT before always greatly increases the chanses that a statement is true.