This is a hi-fidelity recapitulation of one of the main pop theories of negotiation, that good bargaining is always hard bargaining, especially if it's brainless. However, I think it's completely wrongheaded.

There's a great book called Getting To Yes that I recommend everybody read. Here are the main points in a nutshell:

1. Focus on interests, not positions.
2. Separate the people from the problem.
3. Invent options for mutual gain.
4. Insist on objective criteria.

How might that work in a salary negotiation? On the first point, the employer has interests in retention and morale, as well as in the value they can extract from an employee. (Or, maybe not. This is good information to have.) They want to minimize disruption so that they don't have to retrain. The employee has this interest, too, as it's stressful to change jobs. Neither party is going to be served by a wage that is out of balance either way.

On the second point, one important thing not to do is to treat them as someone whom you'd use petty tactics on, as someone to whom you would use something "towards your advantage as bait." You're always having a meta-negotiation about the terms of the negotiation that carries over into your employment environment. Are you going to be cutting each other's throat all the time? Or, during your working relationship, are you going to want to be reaching understandings about how best and most fairly to proceed?

On the third point, you might find that there is a non-obvious imbalance between your demonstrated skills, for example, and your potential in a job that looks to be an amazing fit. What to do then? Do we shift the risk onto the employer, forcing them to pay for potential? Do we shift it onto the employee, insisting on pay for experience only? Well, to "invent an option," what about a probationary period long enough to see whether the potential is going to materialize? The pay would be, say, slightly above pay for experience only, but well below potential. And then you revisit, agreeing in advance that either party can walk if the fit is poor. That's one option, there may be more. Like contracting at a higher rate with an option to be brought on as an employee. Or so on.

Finally, on objective criteria: "Market rate" is not the only criteria. Market rate is just an average, anyhow. What's more objective would be anticipated value from the unique relationship between this employee and that company. How much can you increase sales? What's the likely perceived differential in reputation of your employer if you, the crack tester, continually find nasty bugs before they're discovered outside, so that they can be patched before they become problems? What if you're the amazing architect who can design a robust system that is easy to program in, increasing developer productivity across the board? These things are measurable, even if Bayesian, criteria, if we can look at your history of providing these goods.

I just bristle at this simplistic view of bargaining as mere power plays, and marvel at its persistence in the face of so many better options, not to mention the enormity of value left on the table by both sides of negotiations everywhere.