[_D&L_]

I do not believe there is a theoretical cap.

I'll give u a no-limit exampe first:

Pretend you have AdKs and 3 out of 5 cards on the board have diamonds on it, with no straight flush possibilities. If your Ks was any diamond card, u would have the absolute nuts, but you don't - and pretend u got nothing else (no pair, etc.)

If the pot was $100, it would be correct to go all in with a deepstack here, even if both you and your opponent had trillions in chips. You know your opponent cannot hold the nuts - you know he must fold. And as long as you play your value hand the same way, and you don't bluff more than 49.999% of your hands in this situation, your opponent would be a fool to call you.

Now applied to limit, the same theory I think holds - but just barely. In game theory, every value bet has to be coupled with a potential bluff. Since we would never stop betting the nuts, in theory, we would never totally stop bluffing when we are representing the nuts.

Now for the VERY BIG game-theory exception to this rule. Unike no-limit, the pot is capable of growing very large in relation to any future re-raise. As the pot grows, our opponents pot-commitment grows. Thus, we don't need to bluff him as often, to force him to call us down.

This means, that every time he raises us back, we should drop a certain percentage of our bluffs, re-raise our nut hands and the remaining percentage of our bluffs. Our bluff percent can never hit zero, because we never stop raising with the nuts here. What i mean by our bluffs never hits zero - is that our bluff percentage is asymptotic to zero. Meaning it gets infinitely close to zero, but never quite equals it.

Ok - before I get flamed by a bunch of people who purport to understand game theory, let me say this. This was ONLY a game theory analysis. Obviously a human would feel pot committed at a crtain point even with a second best hand and would always call a limit-reraise. A computer programmed to play poker optimially though would be capable of in-human like laydowns.

P.s. The above examples i used where there was no theoretical limit only hold where your bluff hand rules out the possibility of your opponent holding the nuts when you bluff. If you can't rule that out, gametheory would impose a theoretical cap.

----_Dirty & Litigious_----