Better at higher limits?

[RickyG]

Ignoring the bankroll aspect, does anyone find that they do better at higher limits?

I think there are several factors for this in my personal experience:

If the limits are higher, the money begins to mean something, I pay more attention to the game, the players etc.
The players are better, so their actions actually MEAN something.
Less players per hand allowing you to actually play poker instead of being a "nuts peddler".

On the flip side:
The players are much better on average.
The monetary/bankroll considerations are obvious.


Am I completely nuts? There are still plenty of fish in the $100 an above on party. I currently 4 table the 50 so I am not uncomfortable 2 tabling the $100, and if I am feeling really crazy, one tabling the $200. I understand that I can get wiped out with one bad day if I am very unlucky, but if I am comfortable with that, what other things should I be considering?

[dogsballs]

There are fish at all limits. You see some of the whackier play at the 1000 games.


[ QUOTE ]

The players are better, so their actions actually MEAN something.
Less players per hand allowing you to actually play poker instead of being a "nuts peddler".

[/ QUOTE ]

These statements don't make sense as a reason you'd do better at higher limits. Nut peddling against fish will make you much more $$ than "playing poker" against fewer better players - unless you're some kind of superstar who can manipulate the more thinking players. Me, I'd rather look around at a bunch of goofs splashing around.

Get used to the game you're in and adapt appropriately.