\'Randomizing your bet size\' article
 

Is there a proof-reading failure here?

"...it may be suboptimal to make small, pot-building raises with small pocket pairs or larger field-clearing raises with overpairs if your opponents will often correctly perceive these actions as representing the hand you hold. Randomizing what sorts of hands you make particular raise sizes with will have no impact on what your opponents perceive your raise sizes as representing if they are not aware that your range is randomized."

I would think it would be the opposite. If they have no idea that you are randomizing, then randomizing will have an impact on what they perceive your bet-size represents. If they know that you are randomizing, then they will perceive your bet-sizing as the effect of randomizing, rather than reflecting your hand value.

Re: \'Randomizing your bet size\' article
 

Awkward sentence all around. Should be re-worded imo.

Re: \'Randomizing your bet size\' article
 

" Randomizing what sorts of hands you make particular raise sizes with will have no impact on what your opponents perceive your raise sizes as representing if they are not aware that your range is randomized."

I think this particular sentense is ok, but should be more clear. "Perceive as representing" is the key. I'll be surprised if everyone agrees with the rest of the whole thing though.

Re: \'Randomizing your bet size\' article
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would think it would be the opposite. If they have no idea that you are randomizing, then randomizing will have an impact on what they perceive your bet-size represents.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that there is a lot of information jammed into one sentence here. What it's meant to communicate is that randomizing your raise size will not impact your opponent's perception itself. So, for example, if your opponent perceives big raises as representing strong hands he's going to react in one particular way when you make a large raise, regardless of the fact that you may occasionally be raising with weak hands (which he doesn't know).