[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you never stone cold bluffed (flop play), what is the best that poker player can expect to be?

[/ QUOTE ]

That question makes me nervous. Yes, there is a place for bluffing for bluffing's sake, if for no reason that a game theory move to mix up your game.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is that more important than money?

Mixing up your game is overrated. Many people do this when it hurts them. Mix up your game if doing this means you win more money. If your goal is to make money, don't do it for the sake of mixing up your game.

My primary goal at the poker table is to make money. That sometimes means bluffing, particularly against opponents who seem bluffable, and who seem to give me too much credit.

[ QUOTE ]

But game theory talks about randomizing bluffs, so that you might not even know when you're going to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a very misleading way of putting it. When there is hidden information, the game theoretic solutions usually involve bluffing based on the hidden information you have. For example, you generally should bluff on the river with hands with the least showdown value, not all of the hands that would be bluffing after you bet. If there is a chance that your opponent will call with a draw, then give up when it misses, then you might prefer bluffing on the turn with hands that are better than the draws.

If your opponent deviates from optimal play by folding too often, it may be right to bluff 100% of the time with many hands. If your opponent deviates from optimal play by calling too much, it may be right to bluff 0% of the time.