After re-reading my statement, I think I meant to caution you, just kinda generally speaking, that while you're getting better at reading villains, you're probably not good enough to deviate that far from ABC poker to exploit a villain in a sensible way.
I.e. maybe you're actually right about reading the villain, but your sense of how wide a range to bet and how thin an amount to bet may still end up owning yourself.


My basic rule for learning poker is to always play ABC poker and only to deviate when you've done some equity calcs that support whatever advice you've been given, or what inspiration you've had. Just double check your gut, is my advice.
(Working scientist, here. Is it obv?)

Even at the top stakes, ABC is winning play. It's just not the most winning play all the time. Barry Greenstein may not be a top money winner, but he's steadily successful and his whole thing is to just always play ABC poker. A solid TAG game can be consistently winning, even against great opponents. Now, he clearly knows when to step out of line, but I'd wager that he does so far less than people think he does, and he's playing table image when he does so.