[QUOTE=Aaron W.;54524592]
Quote:
. So yes, you're winning a non-zero percent of hands when it checks through, but it's a non-zero number that's very close to zero.
We're against a tag, which I take literally to mean "good player." This implies to me that this opponent will bluffcatch at near correct frequencies, which will make bluffing almost 0ev(of course nobody's perfect but in equilibrium heads up out of position bluffs are 0ev). I think the small ev gain acknowledged by Aaron above is worth more than the potential profits gained by calling down a tag on the river, who very well might be a bit value heavy.
Quote:
I think bluffing is better than not bluffing. If he is calling with 22 when I bet the river with K-high, then I should be completely owning him with my value range.
Do you bluff every worse hand available to you in your turn betting range? I would think that bluffing KJs, while checking 87o unimproved, would be just plain backwards poker. I would also think that if you are in fact betting KJs or worse, you either don't carry enough weaker bluffs in your turn betting range, or you will bluff way too much.
If he can safely call with (every hand that beats a bluff on the river, which in your case is 22) without you giving up on bluffs, he's going to beat you in the long run.
This is exactly because (hands that can't beat a bluff) may be safely folded on the river without fear of exploitation, provided that earlier streets were played correctly. For example, I don't include unimproved 76ss in my river minimum defense frequency calculation because it can't beat a bluff. Thus it's not a liability to my range.
So yeah, if he's calling every hand that can beat a bluff, he's not in equilibrium, you can exploit this by literally never bluffing because it's not profitable.