Having a poker AI that plays deterministic strategies is an obviously terrible idea, for the precise reason you mention.
It makes much more sense for the strategy space to be the set of probability distributions over game moves (i.e. mixed strategies).
I think that the optimal mixed strategy for each hand is immune to bluffing (over many hands it will have larger expected winnings against a bluffer). If that wasn't the case, there would exist no Bayes-Nash equilibrium for the game, contradicting Nash's theorem.
It makes much more sense for the strategy space to be the set of probability distributions over game moves (i.e. mixed strategies).
I think that the optimal mixed strategy for each hand is immune to bluffing (over many hands it will have larger expected winnings against a bluffer). If that wasn't the case, there would exist no Bayes-Nash equilibrium for the game, contradicting Nash's theorem.