<> is programmer talk for not equal. As a programmer, you deal in absolutes. Computers are designed to function in such a manner. At the limit tables I am frequenting, the decision tree is far more obscure. I try to avoid getting into the oxymoron argument in this one.
I first started off playing Limit. I hated it. I also really sucked at playing it which might have contributed to that prejudice. It is a different disipline from No Limit or Pot Limit. When I moved to NL in SnG’s, I could bet a player off a hand that a limit player could chase with. That seemed a big advantage. But, it does come with its own complexities. One isn’t easier or harder than the other. They are just very different.
Bluffing happens everywhere. It is a part of the game. But, the cost vs benefit level is quite different. Bluffing at Limit seems easy. Lord knows you see a lot of it. It makes more sense in the flop games where the button is fixed. It can lead to costly situations at the stud tables where first bets often fly around positions that give it and take it away with regularity. That makes bluffing far more difficult at times. But most players cut their teeth playing flops and simple position values that don’t change. I don’t beleive their thinking transitions to the changes.
Harrington factors bluffs in at a rate of 10%. That seems as reasonable a figure to work from as any. We don’t really get a success rate. It’d be interesting if statistics were released from the feature tables we’ve seen across a spectrum of varied tournaments. A bluff means you win with the worse hand. We attribute that to various fears on the part of the other player. I think the one that’s often missed or discounted is the fear of looking bad. It is a constant topic in blogger tournaments but seldom seen elsewhere.
A constant theme in good TV analysis is deductive reasoning based on the texture of the cards being seen. Mike does an exceptional job in discussing that feature of play. And good players on their good days can do an exceptional job of extrapolation. But that is NL and tournament and that is drifting from the subject.
Discipline differ. Ring vs Tournament is the classic example. Tournaments are binary for the player. Ring provides different factors with success coming incrementally. In limit it often uses the definition of BB/hr. The known average for such wins might run between 2 and 4 big blinds per hour. Yet variance can and does provide great variance.
All of the above and more is a part of my experience. How well I translate all this from hand to hand is arguable and varied. We will all screw that up but we understand our mistake