[Raxxmataxx]

So zero thoughts on range vs ranges and that sort of thing?

I mean, I'm completely aware that this line with KQ very *probably* doesn't do to well. Thing is, we don't know what that probability is, and if you look at a line with 0 bluffs in them that is very easy to exploit, and can easily be done so even by mistake. So adding a tiny percentage of bluffs shouldn't be a big mistake, even if you do take a very exploitive view of the game.

I'm getting the impression that nobody who posts here actually does any thinking in terms of strategy mainly in terms of your *own* range vs the opponents' rather than your specific hand.

Which surprised me a little since that should done by anyone who've read Math of Poker, or listened to HossTBF, Terrence Chan, Bill Chen or a host of other well known players, as well as being fairly common in the NL-community here.

Ie, I was hoping for something along the lines of "that's a [censored] hand to bluff with because it's call down value is so good and you'll have other hands in your range that can be bluffed instead, with less lost in call-down value, the very small fraction of times you should actually be bluffing"

Instead I got "that's a bad bluff because you'll get called." Which is really elementary-grade poker thinking of the type that's presumably been around about as long as poker. And it's also the sort of thing you can't much learn about except by playing.

Or at least "those guys play so exploitably that you should have 0% bluffs in your turn raise".