I chose the tables with the highest Player/Flop(30%+) and hands in the 60-70 range.

Even the players that don't start with 100BB are not even close as bad as some fullstacks(+autoreload) in Nl2.

Yes there are still terrible players but man, this is a fricking grind.

They are so tight, I just steal from UTG with suited garbage and halfpot the flop for autoprofit.

And you can fold QQ vs 3bets and be happy, obviously not vs some players, but readless imo, at least if it's a 100BB player.

Yes, from time to time there's a lunatic, but apart from the weekends it's just too tight for me.

Or do I tableselect the wrong way?

Should I observe the tables with the highest average Pot and only get on the waitinglist if it was like A2o vs 33 pre? And leave when the maniacs are gone?

If you're coming from NL2, then they're bound to be a bit tighter. It probably isn't as bad as you imagine--I'm not really sure what the complaint is with being able to open and auto-bet the flop and having that be profitable, especially oop.

I'm not sure QQ is ever in my fold-to-3! range, and I'm fairly confident it shouldn't be in yours.

You aren't going to get the weak passives as frequently as you do at NL2, and this trend will continue until NL50, at which point and for whatever reason, the pool is actually worse than NL10.

As for table selection, you should be looking for the highest average pot and the lowest number of hands/hour. Typically this means that the players don't know what they're doing. Using NL10 as an example, if a table has $3.75 avg pot and around 55 hands/hour, that's a pretty good table--especially compared to a table that has $1.33/hand and 117 hands/hour. That's irrespective of average players to the flop. That's an okay metric, but mostly results in you finding the exact game you're finding--lots of calls pre, and lots of folds post.

Basing table selection on observing one wonky hand is foolish.

Lastly, successful online poker is a grind. I think I read that in a book.

It's called a grind for a reason

A tracker could show you the differences between 2NL and 5NL population are virtually nil. Aggregate frequencies in common spots always end up the same over a big sample. Don't get caught up in anecdotal evidence. There is no difference in player quality at microstakes. It's all in your head.

In my own experience 2nl and 5nl play very different. 5nl (and 10nl for that matter) are very nitty limits. Add the fact that the # of fish decreases with each level you go up, and obv the higher you go, the harder it should be.

Also, it´s a common theme that one of the main leaks of microstakes players is being too nitty and folding too much postflop/not being as aggressive as they should be.

Cheers