I've always had a strong feeling about it, until I was reading one of Sklansky's Theory of Poker final chapters today. He says that "a bunch of incompetent players" is HARDER to read than average-to-good players. He also says the obvious, i.e, that tough players are harder to read than average-to-good players. That's something I live with when playing NL2.
Also, I'm a huge fan of hasenbraten's session reviews. I find them inspiring and always watch one of them before a long session, just to get more information and some perception before entering the game. I notice that those players he finds on NL50 and above are quite consistent. They have some kind of logic behind their actions, even when they're complete fish. They are aware of pot odds, have some kind of opening standards, so on. Having some logic, even the worst of them are not stupid, and therefore, more readable.
This definetly DOESN'T happen on NL2 SH. It's just chaos. People limping with AA and AK, calling UTG raises with 48 suited, etc. Of course they lose a lot by playing like this, but they also get lucky sometimes. Anyway, they are really hard to have a read on and I have to rely entirely on my Poker Edge HUD to take action most of the time.
Am I the only one who feels like that? Most of my losses on NL2 come from moments in which I have the best hand but somebody gets lucky by the river and makes something stronger. 
