Taking into consideration the brutal rake of microstakes. It would not be a good a idea to play less and well selected tables in a much higher stakes?

Lets say play 2 nl10 tables instead of 4-5 nl5 tables, etc.

One could argue that you would have much greater variance and tough oposition but you will also have less rake and you are suppoused to be studying will doing this. So that new and "better" oposition should not be a problem. Besides that if you are not living of poker you really should be more agresive with you BRM. A lot to earn, just a few to loose.

Sorry for my broken english by the way.

One factor to consider is the rake structure of the site on which you play.

On the US-facing sites where I play, peak rake, figured in BB/100 is at about 50NL. Yes, that's right, in the microstakes, if you move up, you climb deeper into the rake trap, and don't see a significant drop until you get to 200NL.

Toughness of the opposition is a real issue. The relative fraction of poor players goes down as one moves up in stakes, and, more importantly, the quality of the better players increases significantly.

That said, you will have swings twice the magnitude playing a single table of 200NL as you would playing four tables of 50NL. The savings in rake might or might not be enough to make up for the drop in win rate due to the lower proportion of poor players in the pool.