[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
I knew after my question posted that it was a weak question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't find it weak, but your follow-ups are good too.

[ QUOTE ]
Is superior post-flop play more a matter of reading your opponents, or a continuation of taking control of the hand? Judging by the players who are labeled excellent post-flop players--Helmuth, Negranu, Lindgren--it would appear that these are players who are excellent readers of the opposition, not necessarily just ultra aggressive players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm no NLHE expert by a longshot, but imagine it's two sides of the same coin. Players who read the opposition well know when to be aggressive. If raw, unselective aggression were winning play, poker would be easy. They know when to be aggressive because they correctly judge more than how their opponents will react (folding better hands, calling value bets).

[ QUOTE ]
So, what are they better at than their competitors? Since a lot of contributors to this forum discount the value of "tells," I would assume their edge is not picking up on tells.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa whoa whoa!!!

It's all about context. I would say don't bother looking for tells in the Foxwoods $2/4 until you're playing the cards and the situation optimally, because there's much more to be made from that sort of technical knowledge. At high levels (limit or NL), tells are tremendously important because supposedly everyone has the basic technical knowledge. Low-buyin NLHE is probably a middle ground where technical knowledge can make some money but reads/tells are helpful too.

I look for reads and tells in low-limit games because correct play can get boring and I want to learn this for when I move up. But you don't need to focus on tells until you're well on your way up the food chain. And often a good read is just an intuition about psychology that doesn't involve a specific physical manifestation, i.e. isn't a tell.