> "Bluff" has a very specific definition, and it requires that the person bluffing knows they cannot successfully follow through on the bluff. From a game-theo

> "Bluff" has a very specific definition, and it requires that the person bluffing knows they cannot successfully follow through on the bluff. From a game-theoretic perspective, this is incorrect (even though it accurately describes everyday use of the word). Think about a poker bot which bluffs. It makes no sense to talk about "knowing" here. The GTO strategy to poker is just a solution to a gigantic series of equations. My point was that talking about "thinking" and "knowing" is missing the deeper point. You can talk about bluffing without those concepts.