[unfrgvn]

I also really like this article. These two paragraphs in particular are pure gold:
[ QUOTE ]
Take it further. All huge bluffs are huge bets, though (again) not all huge bets are huge bluffs. So when you put a calling station all-in for his stack on the river in no-limit Texas Hold 'em, he probably does more thinking than good players are inclined to give him credit for. He compares the information he has: "This guy is making a huge bet." Then no matter what his cards, the calling station will ask, "Is he bluffing?" But whereas the good player will think about the entire logic of the hand and the tendencies of his opponent, the calling station simply asks, "Does this look like a bluff?" The answer, inevitably, is yes.

There is an interesting and counter-intuitive implication to the representative heuristic, which is often exploited by loose-aggressive types. Namely, that sometimes a big bet is more likely to get called than a small bet. Good loose-aggressive players knock tight players out of their comfort zone by putting those tight players into the calling station's state of mind. The tight player no longer feels comfortable making decisions based on the logic of the hand and probability. Instead, the tight player is constantly reduced to asking, "Is this a bluff?" For this reason, it sometimes happens that there is a curious inversion in which small bluffs fold tight players off mediocre hands ("she obviously wants and expects my call"), but large value bets get called by those same mediocre hands ("she either has a huge hand or nothing, and there are more ways for her to have nothing.")



[/ QUOTE ]

Looking forward to your next article.