gotta remember to look at the clock when you are not bluffing too, otherwise you are teaching your opponents how to "tell" time.

They look at the clock to decide whether or not to bluff, so this is already taken care of.

Except, if you don't look, the table knows you aren't considering bluffing.

It's still a tell.

I use the second hand on my watch to help with mixed strategies; sometimes using it to inform size of raise, or the direction of raise/fold, raise/call, and (rarely) call/fold decisions.

As such, if you happen to notice me look at my watch, you can deduce I might be raising, or calling, or folding, with a strong, weak, or medium hand that is already made, or on the come; or that I am interested in the time for a reason such as wondering how long i've taken, how long i've been at the table, if i need to leave, if a new dealer might sit and collect time soon, or something else.

I get that you're a pedant who wants to be right; but it's not a remotely useful tell unless the person does it only in one type of situation. but nobody who is concerned about how well they mix a mixed strategy is dumb enough to mix only _one_ strategy.

edit: and i'm not a pro. i play in mid-stake games with $1-5k buy-ins.

Apparently you're also a pedant who wants to be right.

No it's not. There are other sources of randomness around - color of card on table, ...

Don't assume pro players are so stupid as to fall in such a simple trap.

That's not the point they were making.

The point was that if you're going to look at the clock and use the second hand to help you make decisions about whether or not to bluff, look at it at other times too when you're not making a decision, so that looking at the clock doesn't become a tell.

You should consider bluffing on every action. Otherwise it's not random enough.

Not all bluffs are wild all-ins with deuce-seven off-suit. Some bluffs are a bet instead of a check, or a bet slightly larger than typical.