I play for a couple of hours, most days, at 1/2 with some friends and for bankroll building at the weekend, I play all stakes up to 50/100. I’m more than comfortable at higher stakes and used to play up to 1k/2k (and higher!) but I am now bankroll limited (not for reasons to do with my style of play) and have only a small amount of play time to correct that situation. For what it’s worth, this time around, I have gone from zero to nearly 200k in about 3 weeks = 30 - 40 hours of play. Considering how much time I spend on the 1/2 tables, that is probably less than 10 hours of bankroll building play.
I’m using 1/2 stakes to convert BB to actual number of chips but I use nearly exactly the same strategy at 2/4 and 5/10 tables as well.
I think that it is essential, at all stake levels, to have a well defined starting hand range for each position and only deviate from that if you have a strong read on the players at your table. Given the propensity for low stakes players to call with nearly any two cards, I fold a LOT pre-flop - my stats say that I fold 75% of the time which is appropriate for my style of play and a bit too low for people who play (or want to play) a TAg style.
I very close to never open limp and nearly only limp behind with some of my more speculative hands that play well, multi-way, post-flop and will play for stacks when they hit. That is, I am limping behind and relying on implied odds to cover the “cost” of the large number of times that I have to fold to any bet post-flop. I do balance this by occasionally limping a premium hand but I’m not sure how important balance is at these low stakes.
My minimum pre-flop raise is “pot” which works out to be 3.5BB + 1BB for each limper before me - exactly where we want to be. If that doesn’t narrow the field sufficiently then I will raise higher on the next hand that I play - anything up to 12.5BB (25 chips) will generally get at least one caller and it is not unusual to get two callers even up to 17.5BB (35 chips) - I like multiples of 5!
Given how aggressive I am pre-flop, there is nearly always a decent pot to be won just by inducing folds on the flop; therefore I raise on the flop, at least 1/2 pot, with anything that hits my range even if it doesn’t hit my exact cards and sometimes I c-bet “just because I can”. This, in practice, leads to a nearly 100% c-bet ratio if I am the pre-flop aggressor.
From what I have read, a post-flop hit only occurs 1/3 time on average and, obviously, I am not hitting the nuts every time even when I do get a hit on the flop. Simple maths will tell you that I am c-bet (semi-) bluffing in the order of 70% - 80% of the time. Having said that, as I move to the higher stakes, 10/20 and above, I significantly reduce my bluffing range as a matter of practicality - my bankroll will not sustain the variance at those stakes.
The turn card will quite often hit my range on its own or in combination with one or more of the flop cards and that is enough to justify, to me, firing a second barrel of, again, not less than 1/2 pot. The same applies on the river although I will nearly always fire off 3/4 pot through to 1.5x or 2x pot - whatever is necessary to fold out the last player(s). You should, obviously, bet smaller for value on those rare occasions that you do have the absolute nuts.
At the low stakes, knowing how often people will call with complete rubbish and chase a draw to the very end, it is, in my opinion, extremely unwise to go to showdown with anything less than the absolute nuts. My stats are that I win 17% of pots, which I understand is about average across all players at all stakes, and I win a massive 63% of pots without showdown. This is ridiculously high and clearly indicates that I either know nothing at all about value betting (since I know the term, that is probably not true!) or I am winning with a very high percentage of my bluffs.
Be warned that this style of play is definitely not for everybody! I get felted quite regularly and a single session loss of 1000BB (2000 chips) is not at all unusual for me. It is also very easy for any decent player to exploit this style of play - I have to remain at “high alert” and notice, very quickly, when someone is making adjustments.
I strongly suspect that taking the advice of @JoeDirk and others before me will yield very similar or better results to what I achieve with my style of play.
I enjoy playing LAg (borderline maniac) because it strongly “encourages” me to learn to read the board and put players on ranges post-flop. If you want to go this route, please note that trying to put players on a range pre-flop is a fools errand! You MUST go to the flop assuming that you are playing against a pre-flop range of any 2 cards regardless of how aggressively you raised pre and never be surprised, and definitely never complain, about getting your, what you think is the nuts hand, defeated by a river card hitting your opponent who called with rubbish and chased the 4 outer through to the bitter end! This will happen so often that you will swear to your choice of god(s) that RP is rigged! RP is NOT rigged - you are playing against people who will chase 3 and 4 outers and win. If there are 2 people sticking with you to the river card, you will lose, far more often than you think possible, to one of those 3 or 4 outers. That is the nature of (pseudo) random numbers doing what (pseudo) random numbers do!
If you can take the extremely high variance and enjoy the thrill of taking stacks, my style of LAg (“informed maniac”) is a style that may be worth exploring. Very conservative bankroll management is another essential element of this style of play.
As I said, I don’t think is a great, or even good, style for most people but it works for me and gives you a different perspective on how you might want to play.
Hope this helps