 Rather than defend the idea that violations of Reflection can be rational by attempting to distinguish the Dutch Strategy argument for the principle from other Dutch Book arguments that are desirable to retain, an alternative is to take each kind of Dutch Book as pointing to a defect, and then argue that the most reasonable attitude in some circumstances is to hold on to less than ideal credences. The view that Dutch Book vulnerability generally involves a departure from the ideal of consistency is endorsed in defense of Reflection by Huttegger (2013).  The idea is that whereas the Dutch Strategy argument does establish Reflection as a kind of consistency constraint, this doesn’t require that in bad circumstances departure from the ideal cannot be the most rational option overall.  This response does assume that violations of Reflection can sensibly be held as a form of inconsistency, and this remains controversial.