Which tactic is more lethal?

[bertaS1234]

Bluffs. If you misbehave then you will be wrong someday. In general, any tactic can be good or bad.

 

[Knockofff]

I'll have to go with bluffing because it's a wonderful feeling pulling off a bluffing taking down a pot u would have lost

 

[Phoenix Wright]

Good to see so many responses point out how both of these extremes as defaults would get crushed over the long-term; poker is greatly about balance and adjusting.

However, all else equal, I'd say that typically under-representing the strength of your hand is more likely you'll get paid when they call, but over-representing the strength of your hand is likely to win smaller pots more often (as others fold). Both played as a strategy are doomed to failure, but the art of adjusting when correct is a critical factor for success

 

[polosati]

I think it all depends on the length of the table and the position in the current hand. It is also important what the size of the stack is. Aces not preflop without aggression is still more dangerous than bluffing with garbage in your hands.

 

[Paul mack]

Would like to hear your opinions: what do you consider more dangerous to other players, bluffing with nothing in hands to win, or pretending you don't have anything, with for example, pocket aces preflop?

Surely bluffing when you block the nuts with your hand but I wouldn't go mad with 7 2

 

[ROYALROAD]

Everything depends on the situation on the place.
No tactic is impossible.

 

[alien666dj]

The worst thing is to bluff with nothing, and not knowing how to do it right.