played a short sessions a 5NL last night, approx 300 hands. Made a loss of around $1. Big Woop. I don't mean to assume that what i'm asking about/theorising will be consistent given the heinously small sample but bare with me.

reviewed win/loss regarding preflop actions.

simply put, i won $ when I raised preflop.
I lost $ when i called preflop.

this is ofcourse because i was not involved in any big hands and the advantage often lies with the preflop aggressor, typical loss was with low mid pp's that i intended to set mine and missed, or missed AQ+ that faced post flop aggression.

to the contrary, when IP i often 3 bet AQ+, mid pp's. and these hands typically won $ either seeing folds preflop of c/f's post flop.

So I have an array of the same hands where I either call or 3bet, and see losses and profits respectively.

So I argue that I should..
  1. 3 bet a larger range when IP
  2. never cold call unless there is either multiple callers, or raiser is a donk/fish.
  3. play tighter re implied odds for set chasing
  4. only play high unpaired cards as the preflop aggressor


This should have the effect of..
  1. Increasing my $won without showdown
  2. Increasing my $won when cold calling preflop, due to only playing vs fish or in juiced pots (because these are typically fit or fold situations)
  3. polarizing my 3bet range leading to increased action for premium hands


Regarding the decision to 3bet/call/fold non premium hands preflop

3bets should be against weak/tight pfr's, and be concious of other players yet to act, such as donk/fish in the blinds.

calls should occur if a fish is the pfr, or a fish has called the pfr, and only with significant implied odds.

folds should occur in likely HU pots against against either weak/tight or TAG players. and will depend heavily on villains tendency to call 3bets preflop

calls can also occur against weak/tight villains known to fold to flop aggression.


....

All of this would ofcourse be dependent on overall table texture as this strategy would get in to trouble with a high percentage of loose/passive type players, but will work better against a high percentage of weak/tight players.

Anyone with a larger sample size and/or more experience care to concur or shoot me down?