[punter11235]

MDMA thanks for taking the time to write that post. Basically I understand your approach. I have two points to add :
-Its never correct to "bluff a little less" or "bluff a little" more its in general correct to always bluff or never bluff if we can say sth about strategy our opponent is using (in particular hand) and if we cant determine if our opponent is too loose or too tight we still can always bluff or always value bet .. the only situation which require any kind of randomizing (or "balancing") is against opponent who is good at reading our mind.
-therefore I think "balancing your play" should be done as bluffing if our opponent may start to think we are too tight and not bluffing if our opponent may start to think we are too loose (or whatever other reasons he can have to bluff more or bluff less). Of course we preferably should be making biggest bets possible because the mistakes after those bets will be in general (not alwayas) the biggest.
-I agree with you that in general bigger bets are better in those situations (they are better even if perfect opponents play each other)
-Actually adjective as "too tight " or "too loose" might be misleading. Its entirely possible that its often correct for somebody to fold to our bluff mroe then 50% of the time because river card is such that now our range is ahead of his hand then we should bluff even against perfect opponent (and we should always bluff not just sometimes). What I am saying and believing in is that we should always try to determine if he will fold enough or call enough and then go with our assesment. We should never do stuff just for matter of balancing itself.

Well I of course I can be wrong as Iam nowhere near being good at this game. I would love to see somebody pointing mistakes in my thinking.
It seems that we have a nice little thread now [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]