[rzk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
my statement is that if on _future hands_ it will be 26% instead of 40% then on these future hands the villain will be less profitable to play against since he became closer to optimal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats the conclusion you cant make.

See my previous post

[/ QUOTE ]

i thought your previous post assumed i was talking about only the AT hand, which i'm not.

if he starts bluffing closer to optimal then yes, as you mentioned in your previous post, some hands gain in EV and some hands lose in EV.
but the question is: has the overall EV increased or decreased?

if his strategy is now closer to optimal then it is less exploitable and less profitable to play against. i really don't see any room for disagreement here, the statement is true almost by definition.

the only situation when his making his bluff frequency closer to optimal is better for us is if he replaces his "bluffing-too-much" errors with some kind of other errors. in other words, he can start to bluff optimally but make other elements of his strategy so much worse that his new strategy is more exploitable than the old one. it doesn't sound like that's what you meant, but just in case, is it?

btw, sorry to argue for so long - i'm really surprised we are disagreeing on what i thought to be a simple issue.