[grizy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
grizy -

You are making the exact point I am. The EV of bluffing against an optimal opponent in the clairvoyance game is 0.

Interestingly, 0 is also the EV of checking.

That Pete would suggest this situation as an example where an optimal mixed strategy contains different EV branches suggests that he is not only clueless, but mildly retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wtf, so you're playing a game where your opponent's actions are never dependent on yours?

1. such a game is not poker.
2. if you're truly clairvoyant, you should be playing the loterry.

I just wated 10 minutes of my life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pete assumed clairvoyance when he said we know our opponent has top pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

He did not assume to know what our opponent's strategy is... and unless you violate that assumption, z's dependence on x in my example dictates a mixed strategy is best.... and that betting a totally dry side pot is always negative EV.

Look, Pete explained the game in words to you already... and I put it into matrix form. If you still can't figure it out, you really need to take game theory 101 or whatever they call it nowadays.