Optimum bluffing frequency question

[Wolfram]

Seems to me that a zero bluffing frequency is optimal since nobody folds anything anymore (small-stakes at least).

[jr4284]

All have made valid points, but I'm mainly thinking about how Sklansky works it to be profitable whether they call or fold. So even if, yes, "nobody folds anything anymore" we're still happy with that result. I dunno. Part of my brain agrees with you guys ("dont' bluff the unbluffable") and part of me agrees with Sklansky ("numbers don't lie").

[maxter]

Numbers don't lie, of course, the optimal bluffing frecuency makes our opponent indifferent (zero EV for him), it doesn't matter if he always calls or always folds (in the nuts-or-nothing situation).

But if our opponent is unbluffable we should never bluff because we know that is -EV. Our strategy of value betting the nuts or bluffing at the right frequencies is not -EV though, because is optimal, but the strategy of value betting 100% and never bluff has a higher expectation. We found and exploitive strategy against him, but we must be aware that exploitive strategies are also exploitable. If our opponents notices that (in the example), he'll start folding 100%, so we gain nothing.

In real life, we try to find exploitive plays all the time, because that's where the money comes from. Playing pseudo-optimally against a calling station is nonsense, of course. However, optimal strategies can help us to find balance in our lines, and that's extremely important when we face good players, who are looking for leaks in our strategy.

For me is extremely difficult to find out balanced strategies, but trying to think on them had helped me in various postflop spots where I was uncomfortable, specially those where my hand was revealed. Tons of work to do yet, though.