Throw away 'the book'?

[BadgerAle]

Hello all,
This is a long and rambling post so be warned.
I would like your opinion on a change of style of playing that i have adopted of late.
On returning to play on party, in the 6 seater 100NL tables, i quickly fell into a pattern of calling almost every flop with any non-premium hand, and calling any largish raise with any small vaugely connected cards- 86o 95s. The result being i see almost any flop. I then play tightish very aggressive folding most times but when i hit the flop (more often than you would think) i make money off people glued to there over cards/over pair. I also feel confident enough to win big hands with bluffs when the cards are low and scary.

My rational is that these tables are so loose post flop that the pre-flop bet is very small compared to the size of the pots- the pre-flop raiser seems to have a standard pot size flop bet which sets the precedent for the turn and river.

I post here because in conversation with other players (who seem reasonably good players and claim semi-pro status)there was aggrement that my playing style, despite its apparent success, is doomed to long term failure. Whats more the assumption was that i am an amateur newbie who will quickly learn the standard way is best- I have been playing online for about 2 years sometimes as my main income, and while i don't claim to be a pro i'm definatly not an amateur.

Ok, my reasons against 'standard'/ solid play:

-It allows easy reads by experianced players (me)- often just the pre-flop bet can say AK JJ ect. -if i can know that i can't go wrong with 46suited.

-It has been passed on through books that assume a full seater table and is not relevent to the game in question- six handed.

-It also assumes standard mix of opponents as opposed to a full set of tilty LAGS found at the party 6seat 100NL table.

-Some of this percieved wisdom doesn't even apply to NL.

-What am i more likely to lose my stack with 47 off suit or AA AK QQ?

-It is the stratagy of the unimaginative, unperceptive and unintelligent who make up for lak of ability through the following of rules and standards.

-It may be profitable against the right opponents but its boring.

Thanks for reading. I would like your opinions on this as to wether its a sound stratagy, reasons against it ect. I haven't given any results/win-rate as I haven't been using the style long enough, I am more after theoretical objections.

Thanks
Ed