It appears that everyone missed an important word in my original post, or at minimum choose not to address the issue of percentage, ; most of the responses have to do w/ arguing the finer points of "variance". And that's fine, and there are some good arguments, and some not so much. Many of the responses basically said "the volume of money swings are higher when you play higher levels"...well duh! But try wrapping your head around percentage and then make an intelligent posting.

So take out "volume", such as volume of money....call it an amount if you want, a certain amount or volume of money, poker chips, or green beans. It doesn't matter and that's NOT what my post said.
My post specifically addressed the issue of percent of variance is highest in the lowest stakes games.

The OP may very well be under rolled for playing a higher stakes games, I don't know. However his post skirted a topic worthy of discussion: the percentage of variance is different, if changes, at different nl stake levels. The lowest nl live games have the highest percentage of variance.
And a reasonable person may ask how could come to make such a statement? What facts and what basis do I have for making such a statement? Suffice to say I have completed an extensive study based on accurate numbers from real players in a large live low stakes poker market -Las Vegas. I have the data to support my claim and I'm standing by my statements.

1) As a practical matter,low stakes games have the highest percentage of variance.
Knowing this and accepting the dynamic of what causes this issue can reduce a players volume & percentage of variance.

2) It takes work to tame the variance train, and dg harris is one of the best technical writer in communicating in a written format...ie; this blog.

no, I just think that because I guess it seems that the players are more predictable, and therefore more easily exploitable. In 1/2 many players do many irrational things and they will draw to pretty much anything in a lot of games. My understand is that basically certain plays have certain EV. Betting into a guy that's nitty and folds everything has a certain EV. Never bluffing a calling station has a certain EV. Smooth calling with the nuts as opposed to raising has a certain EV. etc. Every play that you make at the table has either a positive or negative value, given that players tendencies. I guess that's the reason i think 2/5 is easier. They play more rationally, thus, making it easier to figure out a counter strategy to what they are doing.

It's all relative I guess. I personally think 2/5 is easier for me. It may not be for other people. Just depends on how you think about the game. Personally, I wish i was a better 1/2 player, because I can't afford to sit 2/5 right now. Gonna save up though.

You can't figure out the strategy to beat bad 1/2 players, but you can figure out how to beat good 2/5 players?

I'm going to tell you the secret to easy 1/2 games



Don't tell anyone though.

no kidding. I just think too much when i play and try to do all kinds of crazy things that work at 2/5 but not 1/2 because those players actually think. That's all i'm saying. I just think you have more tools at your disposal.

I didn't read all the posts in this thread, so this may have been covered. But, it annoys me how often people say stuff like this is variance. This isn't variance, this is just what happens some of the time. Variance would be losing in this exact spot 5 out of ten times, that would be variance, because it goes against the actual percentages in the short term. But one trial isn't variance, it's just what happens some of the time.

^....and you are exactly correct

And as Ace added, value bet you're winning hands at the $1/2,3 level is a winning style...its really that simple. Nice post.

There is something to be said for "simple player = simple hand".plus were not playing $2/5+ so the chances vs. the reward (net value) of getting involved in sophisticated bluff's and/or trying to represent a certain hand doesn't work because the value isn't there.
The point about $2/5 being "easier" does have merit. I agree that $2/5+ is a "cleaner" game, and in many ways it is easier to read your opponents .... for example; rarely are $2/5+ players scared to bet their hand or do stupid things like flatted w/ AA pre in late position is "trap" while they let other random cards limp into the pot, only to be beaten later by random 2 pair flop on the flop. I do understand. But kindly keep in mind that you have to play a little different at the different levels....at $1/2,3 you have new players, old burned out grinders and other various unknown's, at the $2/5 level you have full time $2/5 players, wealthy tourist's, AND broke $5/10 players coming back down. And obviously never forget that ALL $2/5 players started at $1/2,3...this means they've seen ALL of the "tricks" of the dummy $1/2 players that limp, call, ck, then bomb in a big ck raise w/ their set against a big pair and other [dumb] nasty $1/2 tactic's...