[Grunch]

[ QUOTE ]
By analogy, we shouldn't automatically can a player into a specific read, which seems to be exactly what you're advocating.

[/ QUOTE ]

If by this you mean that I advocate not narrowing down our reads too much, then I agree. Most of my reads end up as something like, "well based on the kind of player he is, he could have two pair, a straight, a busted flush draw..." and then my action is based on this range.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe your memory is better than mine, but I know that personally, I'd never be able to come up with a decent dynamic read in this fashion without starting by making some notes on the specifics.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I always felt that my memory was always a hinderance to my success, becasue it's not any better than average - perhaps worse. That's actually why I focus on generalities. There's much less to remember that way.

I think we're in agreement, and just wanted to clarify that we agree.