I'm sticking up to conservative bankroll management which means going up only when reach 100bi for the next level. At the current stake I'm +80bi but almost 40bi are from rb (bonus, jackpots,flat rb). My winrate (pre rb) is 5bb/100 on PLO10 (only 30k sample though). My question is, do you guys include rb when consider moving up? If we are breakeven pre rb and get 100bi by rb, should we move up or stay longer until we beat particular stake with reasonable winrate?

All numbers based rules are arbitrary. Pick a ballpark, figure it out for yourself and adjust as needed.

I'd say to take into account some more, personal things as well. If you move up and lose 20 buyins straight away, how bad is that going to hurt you? Will you just be able to move right back down and continue grinding back up and improving until next time or is it going to be more painful? Is your br a lot of money (irl) to you or is it just funds you have set aside for a hobby? Losing 10 buyins in a session is always frustrating but how much more so will that be if its 250$ vs 100$?
If that isn't a drastic increase for you then, knowing nothing else about you, I'd say just count the rakeback as part of your winnings and move up when you hit your mark. Maybe just be a bit more conscious about how you are doing in the beginning and don't hesitate to move back down if things aren't going well or you feel a bit over matched.

Thanks for the helpful advice!

Yeah, definitely considering those things you mentioned. In the past I was playing NL for living and moving up and losing significant buyins was really painful and stressful. At the moment it's more like a hobby because i got 5-9 job and didnt cashout at all since i switched to plo. I'm asking myself these questions after a bad 10 bi losing session and i think i can handle those swings since i had no pressure to pay my bills with the poker winnings, and i understand the downswings are part of the game.

Pretty much sums it up.

I've always felt that you can and should move up whenever you feel like you have enough to take a shot and are confident enough to play higher limits. The key for me has setting a super conservative stop loss and then dropping back down if I go below.

If you have 30 buyins for the next level, why not take a shot with 2 or 3 buyins. If you hit a heater you might be able to stay. If you lose those 2 or 3 buyins just move back down rebuild them and try again. The other adjustment I would make is just play 1 or 2 tables at the higher limit. Even if you were comfortable playing 4+ at your existing level there is no need to add the extra variance into a your shot at the higher level.

Just because Omaha can hand you 20 buyin downswings doesn't mean you need to be prepared for a 20 buyin downswing at the next limit. Bankroll management is done to minimize your risk of ruin. You can do the same by setting hard guidelines for shot taking stop losses and this is easier to manage when you only sit at 1 or 2 tables. Be aggressive with your shot taking but conservative with a stop loss.

I don't want to build 100 buyins for the next limit or even 40 for that matter. I start shot taking when I have 30 buyins at 70% of a buyin and I sit with 70%. If I lose 2 or 3 buyins I just drop down to the previous limit, rebuild and try again. Eventually I will either stick at the higher limit or realize I'm just not good enough and have to adjust (improve) my game or accept that the limit I'm at is as high as I'll ever get (something I'm not sure enough poker players do).

The business world has a concept called the "Peter Principle" of promoting employees up to their level of incompetence. Poker has the same and I will name it the "Poker Principle" whereby a player grows a bankroll large enough to eventually play at a level where they are no longer equally or more skilled than their opponents. The end result often being a bankroll in shambles because that player refuses to accept the fact that they are profitable at X limit but not Y or Z where they think they should or have to play.