[Grunch]

[ QUOTE ]
I think we're talking about the same thing here but getting there differently, do you agree?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I agree. But we are going in opposite directions to get to the same goal. Your specific questions go from the inside out (trees to forest), whereas my questions go from the outside in (forest to trees).

I know that my approach works better for me, and I'm a very analytical person. I suspect that my approach would work better for a lot of people, but I wouldn't say that my way is "right". A lot of this comes from the fact that I think that many 2+2ers are far too reliant on stats, PT, GT+ and the like, when all the information they need is sitting in the seat next to them.

I see I'm about to ramble in soap-box mode, so hang on...

Here's an example. Suppose you have 50 hands on the opponent UTG, and his stats are 20/15. Think you know your man? Now suppose he opens for a raise UTG, then hands plays out, and he shows down Q9s. How do you feel about your stats now? Is he a LAGgy guy who has been cold-decked for 50 hands? Is he a TAG on tilt? Is he a donkey who is totally clueless? According to the stats, he's a fearful opponent. According to his actual play, he's still a bit unknown. A couple more hands will reveal his true nature far quicker than stats or other details-oriented analysis will.

End of rambling.