[Aaron W.]

Up to this point, I have never practiced game selection. I just sign on and play at the first available table. My theory has been (and still is) that at this level, there are more than enough bad players to make the all these games beatable (this level for me = $1/2, but in general terms I'm referring to online small stakes games). Some will be harder than others, but none will require world-class skills to beat. Since my primary interest is not profit (as my financial well being does not rest on my poker playing) but simply to play the game better, I *believe* that it's helpful for me to sit in a variety of games to gain a variety of experiences, even if it would mean that I don't move up levels quite so fast. After all, why risk more money at a $5-10 game for experience when I can experience a similar game at $1-2 (for example).

[For reference, I also don't multi-table, which means I actually get to pay enough attention to notice the differences.]

So this leads me to my questions:
1) Does my hypothesis seem correct? (Enough bad players exist to make all tables beatable.)
2) Is the conclusion about gaining experience correct? (For the sake of learning to play better, it's fine to sit at one level rather than trying to race up to higher stakes)
3) Are there potential pitfalls that I should make myself aware of as I continue along this path of not choosing games? (Staying within a particular level and within financial tolerances -- as there are obvious pitfalls of chasing higher cost games)

Thanks.