So I played $50nl for 17,787 hands with a very passive style. Didn’t raise much pf and only bet when I had the goods. Didn’t bet my draws much either unless it was a very strong draw like an OESFD or OESD with two overs. Once they completed, I would bet them. Throw in an occasional tricky play with sooted connectors and this is the result:



Not too bad. Profitablility is not through the roof, but this is a very good rate considering the risk taken.

Then, decided to run an experiment and see if I played the next 10k hands or so more agressively, would it be more profitable? So, I changed it up and started to raise a lot more hands pf and c-bet more flops. Semi-bluffed a lot more, esp. with OESD, flush draw or even gutshot in some cases. Played more positionally aware poker and bet or raised with marginal hands if checked/weak bet to me. Lastly, loosened up my raising requirements considerably in CO and Button. Here is the results:



Not quite as large as a sample size, but certainly proves that good, aggressive poker beats the crap out of passive, conservative poker. Didn't tell you anything that you probably didn't already know, but I've never seen any data to prove it. Sure, this isn't conclusive data, but it's pretty darn compelling. What is interesting is that my W$SD and W$WSF is nearly identical. Not sure what that means but I would venture to guess that if you play more marginal hands and don't sacrifice any SD wins plus still win $ at the same rate WSF, you are doing pretty good.

Thoughts and feedback appreciated.