Reads are awesome, reads are great. Having reads on an opponent means making non-standard plays that are hugely more profitable than just playing your own two cards against some half-assed assumption of what the other guy’s range is. But, and this is a pet-peeve of mine, people hide behind the notion of “reads” too much when they discuss hands. For example, a response to the question “Should I make a continuation bet with AK on this dry flop out of position?” might will yield a response that says “it depends on the opponent” and then explains what to do if the opponent is, for instance, extremely tight (or some other read that makes the decision easy). This isn’t a bad response, in itself, it’s just that it’s not as helpful as it could be.

I used to do that, to some extent. I used to solve the riddle that I knew how to solve, so to speak. I didn’t know what to do if the opponent was just a typical $1/$2 LHE loose/passive player, but if he was a rock, then continuation betting was sure to be right! But when we only answer the questions we already have the answer to, we don’t learn anything new. It’s vitally important for our own self-improvement that we tackle the questions that we find uncomfortable, the ones where we have no idea what we’re doing and we’re really stumbling in the dark. THAT is the interesting territory, andTHAT is where we should strive to be.

If the decision is easy for you to make when the opponent is super tight, try analyzing the hand from the view point of your opponent being super loose. And then try somewhere in the middle. See what you end up with.