David, do you advocate exploitive strategies?

[HelixTrix]

David,

I posted this in the MoP thread, but I guess you won't see it as the thread looks like it died a few months ago.

I've just finished working through the Mathematics of Poker, then I reread my notes from No Limit Holdem, Theory and Practice. Through my new 'game theory eyes', most of the recommendations seem to be exploitive! I find this quite surprising given my impression of your approach to the game. For example, your 'Basic Skills':

1. Manipulating the pot size.
2. Adjusting correctly to stack sizes.
3. Winning the battle of mistakes.
4. Reading hands.
5. Manipulating opponents into playing badly.

3. and 5. are clearly exploitive. 1. is somewhat arguable but in most of the contexts that you apply it (raising different amounts preflop, making blocking bets, etc.) is exploitive as well. I realise that by 4. what you really mean is 'reading ranges of hands' but even then, the pure game theory approach focuses on reading your OWN range. From MoP p. 374, 'From a game theoretic view, the distribution of hands your opponent holds is irrelevant. If he can exploit you by playing a different set of hands than you were expecting, then your play is suboptimal.'

Would it be fair to condense your advice to the following:

Figure out a near-optimal strategy away from the table; at the table always first look for a way to exploit; if you find none, fall back on your predefined strategy.

Also would you comment on the suggestion that due to reduced sensory input and higher player turnover, playing online one should favour near-optimal play over exploitive play more of the time.

Thanks,

Helix