[jeff329]

[ QUOTE ]
My position is that if you think there is any reasonable chance that you can average more money per hour in a higher game, once you got some experience in it, then you should play in that higher game for a while as long as you don't risk the money that you would need to have a proper cushion in your smaller bread and butter game. And as long as you don't lose a ridiculous amount in the bigger game.

I also believe that these shots should not be taken if it is almost certain that the bigger game would not lead to significantly bigger earnings.

In Daniel's column, the nit refused to move up from 5-10 NL to 10-20 NL. That was what I meant by a sad case.

Personally I play 300-600 mixed games for the most part.

The bottom line is this:

If you can make one big bet an hour and your hourly standard deviation is ten big bets, you really need a 500 big bet bankroll. But that required bankroll is proportional to your standard deviation and inversely proportional to your hourly rate. So if you double your stakes but figure to earn only the same amount, you need four times as much money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can only agree if you believe moving up would mean FAR bigger earnings, but I don't understand how you and others don't see "stress" as a factor to be taken into account if this is what you do. I mean if moving up a big jump in stakes means tougher games, but you know for sure it will mean a 10% increase in overall earnings, it still is not that desirable, as you must ask is a 10% raise worth the stress of swings that are now 100k when they were 20k. It is a factor.