Hello! I am playing NL25 and i want to talk about balancing.

For sure I'm not one of the players who played an insane amount of hands (like 100k / month or so) but i should've played about 500k hands in the past year (not only on 25NL, I started at 2NL in september 2014). And my opinion is: Balancing is pretty pointless (at least up to nl25, never played many hands above, so i can't tell). This is because I rarely see ideal stats at all, and (of course i can't tell 100% because i dont know what my opponents fold) for me it doesn't seem like a lot of players play balanced. my argument to play exploitative is that 'solid' players love to fold at these stakes. for example my range may be not so strong and i know that with my current hand i may have the best hand, but can't value bet. (like A high or an underpair). I tried to play it more check-callish (if villain bets a lot vs missed cb e.g.) but in my experience betting is a lot better because they fold so much! a friend of mine plays PLO and he says even up to 200 he doesn't play balanced because he sees no sense in it, because all players play exploitative and he rather uses the exploitness of his opponents. He also play's 500 but just said that 500 is a lot more aggro, also Preflop ((cold)4bets with Non-AA hands etc.) (i am aware that NL is a lot more progressed than PLO, but i think you still get the point, also heard it about NL from NL players, but not sure if they're winning or not)

My point is:
I like the theory, but wouldn't it be optimal to play exploitative vs a player pool, that seemingly doesnt exploit at a big %-age? my question is because I read a lot of baöance here, balance there in answer at the low stakes forums, an i doubt it's that important t play your range balanced.