[Paxinor]

yeah i got that allready

i am just saying that if people mention that equilibriums have no practical sence in "real poker" and mention the concept of the maximal strategy they are also wrong because in todays poker its more about "keep the edge, don't let the villain adjust" and not about max strategies meaning exploiting his as hard as you can

i know that there are solutions for lots of pokerlike games and tourneysituations

and i know that its the key to abstract the game in lossless way to compute the nash equilibrium and i know that all that wasn't OPs question which has allready been answered and relies heavily on the definition of "pure bluff".

anyway i really think that all academic work so far has not focused enough about those abstractions because todays game theory solving is mostly done by computer scientists and not by economists and in computer sience its more about the algorithm than the acutal solving of the game so there has to be put in some serious research about correct abstraction since those Linear Programming Stuff is kinda shooting birds with cannons without abstractions..

all those guys trying to solve the game have different motivations than "solving the game"

basicly since koller's paper about the sequential form of games in 1995 there hasn't been a major breakthrough even though computers have evolved massivly.