Deception is good in poker. Being readable is bad. The guys with neon signs over their heads blinking away have a tough time getting paid off.

So, I have nothing critical to say about the specific strategic components of deception that have been put forward.

Rather, my concerns are about deployment of this advice, about when it is useful and when it may not be, about whether it should be tempered based on who's sitting around the table with you, and whether following it can actually cost you in the long run.

If you're playing with top-level opponents, mixing up your game is good advice.

In fact, Dan Harrington's two most recent and widely praised books (Harrington on Cash Games, Vols. I, II) are founded on this principle, so let's concentrate on what he has to say.

Harrington lays out each topic that he covers by building a balanced probabilistic formula for that set of circumstances. For example, he'll state that in a given situation he might raise 80% of the time and call the other 20%.

Action Dan: Not as ironic a moniker as you might think.

He uses his now-famous "sweep second hand" technique for making the decision. He will surreptitiously glance at his watch. If the second hand is between 1 and 12 he calls; anywhere else and he raises.

Now the reason why Harrington rates this hand as an "80% raise" hand is because his understanding of the game has led him to the conclusion that raising is the optimum play here. This, of course, entails the conclusion that each of those times that his watch tells him to call, he is making a nonoptimal play.

Harrington, being the world-class player that he is, recognizes that he has created a problem for himself. He goes on to argue that what he loses when he makes a nonoptimal decision is made up for by gains achieved by keeping his opponents off balance and making himself difficult to read.

And, indeed, he is exceedingly difficult to read. His public persona, which he has worked hard to develop and maintain, is that he is rock solid and tight as they come.

I heard someone joke that Harrington was so tight that when he fished a quarter out of his pocket he swore he could hear the eagle squawk.

But when you read his books, you realize the deep truth behind his moniker "Action Dan." It isn't a touch of irony, as most think; it is actually a better mirror of the true "Dan."

All this praise for Harrington aside, I simply don't think his strategy is correct for most of the partially piscine folks who populate cardrooms and online poker sites.

In fact, I think it is counterproductive, because the losses incurred by nonoptimal actions in most contexts are not being counterbalanced by wins created by deception - for two reasons.

1. They're not paying attention.

Truth is, the average player won't notice your random deceptions.

Alas, Harrington's advice isn't worth a hill of beans if the people sitting around the table haven't a clue what you're up to.

While you're cleverly ascertaining whether this situation is one with a 20-80 raise-to-call ratio, they're telling jokes, bitching about their last bad beat, riffling chips, watching TV or sitting there with the DRF in their laps handicapping the next race at Santa Anita.

If they see you look at your wrist they probably think you're worried about a wart. If you then raise (or call), they think you're just, well, raising or calling.

If you raised (because your sweep hand was at "9") and then show down a surprise like 8 7 on a 9 K A 6 5 board, they think, "Hmmm. Nice catch." And not much else.

The point is that most players at the low and mid-level stakes where the vast majority of poker is played are just not paying attention. Deception here has little value.

2. Even when they are, you won't gain much.

Even when you're playing with a stronger crowd - where your opponents are actually paying attention - Harrington's approach may still not be financially viable. You have to play an awful lot of hands with the same people before these random deceptions have any impact.

Suppose you've got a weak hand on the button with two limpers already in. You decide to engage a 70-20-10 breakdown for "fold-call-raise" because you believe that dumping the hand is optimal but you want to mix up your game with some calls and, for serious deception, a couple of raises.

Fine; what does it gain you?

First, there aren't going to be many situations where you're on the button with this kind of hand, two limpers and these particular opponents. If you fold, which you will most of the time, you won't have gained any deception points because no one knows what you folded. Ditto if you call and miss the flop.

Ilari Sahamies: Hard to read because he spins fake guns and slides them into imaginary holsters every time he makes a raise.

The primary gain is with the loose raise that hits, which is only going to happen a very small percentage of the time. True, you gain, in that you become harder to read, but it's just not clear that you're making back what you've given up on these hands.

So, what to do? There are a couple of things to keep in mind.

First, yes, deception is an important part of a winning player's game. You need to be hard to read. But Harrington's probabilistic breakdowns and using your watch are, for virtually any game you're going to find yourself in, of little practical use.

Mix your game up by mixing your game up. Make the occasional surprise raise UTG with 7-5 suited. Reraise in late position with 9-8 every once in a while. Push a missed flop by firing two barrels to neutralize someone trying the "float play" on you.

This will be sufficient to make your game appear mysterious and you hard to read. Avoid FPS or "fancy play syndrome." Go for TAWT ("tight-aggressive with a twist").

Author Bio:

Arthur Reber has been a poker player and serious handicapper of thoroughbred horses for four decades. He is the author of The New Gambler's Bible and coauthor of Gambling for Dummies. Formerly a regular columnist for Poker Pro Magazine and Fun 'N' Games magazine, he has also contributed to Card Player (with Lou Krieger), Poker Digest, Casino Player, Strictly Slots and Titan Poker. He outlined a new framework for evaluating the ethical and moral issues that emerge in gambling for an invited address to the International Conference of Gaming and Risk Taking.

Until recently he was the Broeklundian Professor of Psychology at The Graduate Center, City University of New York. Among his various visiting professorships was a Fulbright fellowship at the University of Innsbruck, Austria. Now semi-retired, Reber is a visiting scholar at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada.

More strategy articles from Arthur S. Reber:

• The Man with No Leaks
• Leaks: Something's Dripping, and It's Money
• Stop Acting Like a Birdbrain
• Hot Hands: Real Effect or Illusion?