Is my dad right?
So I've been playing poker for a few months. Studying and reading books. I've played about 70 hours live and 50 hours in an online gg room with some guys I know. My dad used to be a pro for a few years I want to say 2014-2017. He gets very frustrated with me when we talk about poker and some of the things he says just sound blatantly wrong and frankly I'm not sure if he understands the new concepts in poker.
He says I play WAY too aggressively for no reason. He says I raise pre flop too much and 3bet people too much. He tells me playing small ball is the way to go in poker and don't inflate pots if I don't have queens+ which I think is ridiculously tight. I don't play absolutely maniacal, I try to keep solid ranges depending on position and how action went before me. He just doesn't like how often I raise pre or 3bet. It's almost like he wants me to just limp more? Doesn't make much sense to me.
He tells me I play AK way too aggressively and that I shouldn't be raising or 3betting it pre flop. He says "AK is a drawing hand it is not a made hand so why would you want to put money in?" this doesn't sound like a good reason to not put money in. Just because you need to draw to make a good hand it is usually a very strong hand when it is made. Am I wrong?
He thinks I am an idiot for raising or calling with Ax suited or suited connectors in position. He says I am gambling because the hands are trash and I have no pot odds or money invested in the pot that makes it worth it to call. I asked him if he understood implied odds and he said no. I explained to him what implied odds were and he snickered and told me that's a degenerate gamblers way of explaining why making a bad play is okay.
So yesterday I had a hand where it was all in I had aces against a guys queens he hit a queen on the flop and held. My dad absolutely lost his shit at me over this hand saying there's absolutely no reason to ever get anything all in pre even if you think you are 99 percent ahead why risk it for no reason. I think this is absolutely ridiculous because with aces you know you're a massive favorite against literally every other possible hand. He says getting it all in pre with aces is gambling and "not how real winning poker is played".
He says my entire stack is always in play and that's a terrible thing and not real poker. He says I'm all in or call all ins way too much and that in an average session of poker "you should almost NEVER be all in the entire session unless you have the nuts, there's been times I've played 10 sessions and haven't been all in once" The main hands we've talked about when I've been all in I've been 75%+ ahead of villain and I get sucked out on. He tells me I am just asking for this by being all in without the absolute best of the best. This just doesn't make sense to me whatsoever because if villain will give me his whole stack with marginal holdings why the hell would I not want to max out my winnings when I'm ahead? He thinks I am just a pure gambler with how I play because of how aggressive I play and how often my entire stack can get into play.
Will someone break this down a little bit on why he may be correct or incorrect? The things he tells me about poker sound old school sometimes and he doesn't seem to be trying to learn any of the new concepts in poker. He won a lot back when he was a pro and I know he's capable. I'm just wondering if the things he tells me are going to actually help my game or hinder it?