This is scary to do well in practice, because the mathematically optimal bluff frequency approaches 50% as you increase the overbet size.
It seems like it would be easier for AI to do, since it doesn't have any tells (it's easier to have a poker face when you don't have a face at all).
I remember playing poker as a kid, and experimenting with pretending like my cards were good/bad with body language. I don't think that any professional players use that approach (they just have sunglasses and a straight face), but I wonder if AI could beat humans even more consistently if it developed a way to convey tells and fake tells?
No poker bots yet I know of have developed "exploitative" strategies, where they deviate from the Nash Equilibrium strategy to exploit opponent mistakes.
Back when I played professionally (2012-2016, poker AIs being relevant in 2015/16) the standard was to use a bot to study the best default strategies and use expert human judgement to deviate from it against bad opponents.
It seems like it would introduce a level of predictability that would make it easier to know when the opponent is bluffing.
A penalty kick where the kicker can kick left or kick right. The goalie has to jump one direction, if they jump the wrong direction a goal is scored. Both people know that this kicker is great at kicking to the left side of the goal but rather "meh" at kicking to the right, so if the kicker kicks to the left and the goalie jumps left, there's still a 20% chance of scoring, but if the kicker kicks to the right and the goalie jumps right, there's only a 5% chance of scoring.
There is a Nash equilibrium for the kicker, and it can't be "always kick left" because then the goalie would "always jump left" which would give the kicker an advantage if it kicked right.
Similarly the Nash equilibrium for poker can't be to always fold a weak hand, because that's leaving money on the table because then the opponents will always fold against a raise, which would mean the player could get easy money by raising with a weak hand.
In some sense that's the whole point of Nash equilibria.
You only use the "tell" when you believe there to be a pattern.
Otherwise, if it is truly random, I realize I can't get any info there and I ignore it, which then leads to me just having a straight face.
However at a large table, you are going to get called only by the person who thinks they have the best hand, which is a lot better than the average hand of a typical opponent.
In multiplayer you see it where ranges are narrowed, like 3bet pots or on turn/river
It matters less than you'd think because overbets imply you have a polarized range (nuts or air). You generally pick the bluffs to be hands that have cards blocking the best calling hand combinations.