The face at the table
A player bets confidently with weak cards. Everyone knows that bets may disguise the hand. No one has been promised a truthful account of the player's private cards. In that agreed setting, permitted strategic concealment is part of the contest, and the other players may challenge it by calling. An explicitly false statement may still be called a lie descriptively; the agreement determines what misleading conduct is allowed.
Now move the same confidence to a CRU ledger statement: 'I already transferred the funds,' when no transfer occurred. The surrounding agreement is different. The statement misleads about an operational fact on which others must rely.
The rule makes the difference
The PHS poker concept explicitly permits game-bounded bluffing while rejecting identity-level dishonesty, hidden transactions, and false governance or memory claims. It proposes persona-specific private views so a player does not know everyone else's cards. The later game architecture separates game legality, persona choice, and memory admission; these are design boundaries to verify in any actual table.
A bluff can still be unkind or excessive inside a legal game. A player who needles a newcomer may be acting within the betting rules while damaging the social room. Legality does not excuse every use of pressure.
Pause here: What did the other players agree might be concealed, and which facts did they still need to trust?
Keep the boundary legible
The table should mark its start and end, the scope of permitted deception, and who can see which facts. Ledger totals, turn authority, and compliance with the rules must remain truthful throughout play. The game engine is the designated resolver under a rule version, but its recorded result can contain a bug; check it against the rules, reconcile errors, and preserve disputes. The game license does not extend to claims about money, safety, or relationships.
The little red guide may wear a poker face at the table. When he becomes the cashier, the mask needs to come off.
My answer: What matters is the agreed scope of misleading play. A permitted bluff differs from a false ledger claim; rules, balances, and turn authority remain truthful throughout, and recorded results must be open to correction.