[Cornell Fiji]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And the way I was disputing this was pointing out that for every bet we make for value in a spot we should be bluffing a certain % of the time as well, thus never allowing our opponent to "define our hand" to one specific hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

care to explain why?

[/ QUOTE ]

note: if the villain knows me from twoplustwo or by reputation then all bets are off. My post is for situations where either we are unknown or the villain is unknown.

I would rather play optimally than unexploitably. I would rather play each hand in a manner that maximizes my EV

You are discussing randomizing your play. That means taking a line that is not maximizing your EV some % of the time for the sake of what? table image? I contend that the long run value of someone seeing you play a hand in a manner that is not optimal, and a similar situation coming up (before a table change), and that player remembering how you played the last hand, and whatever else needs to go right for you to play a hand poorly X% of the time is not worth the short run price you pay for it.

Are there exceptions to this? Of course. Against an observant but nonthinking player we might play a big hand the same way that we played a bluff (that showed down) 10 minutes ago but most players do not have an attention span longer than that so there is no reason for us to randomize our play. Obviously I am not talking about playing against good players here, but the simple fact of the matter is that there are not enough good players out there for me to change my overall strategy.

---

Curtains - satellites are a good example of when defining your hand could make sense... but then again you should also be folding AA X% of the times in satellites so...