Hi. I'm a decent rec player that plays cash micro stakes online an hour or two almost every day (VPIP 23.3, PFR 14.8). Every resource says I must learn how to 'crush' the lower stakes before moving up, and that's what I've been focusing on lately, but my results at 10NL and 25NL suck compared to 50NL and don't seem to be improving.
Stats for last 22k hands on BOL are as follows:
10NL 10549 hands -11.71 bb/100
25NL 8986 hands -18.03 bb/100
50NL 2591 hands +21.93 bb/100
And from last just night:
5PM EST 25NL 1 hour 45 hands -16.89 bb/100
7PM EST 25NL 1 hour 20 mins 91 hands -47.52 bb/100
9PM EST 50NL 30 mins 41 hands +83.90 bb/100
Small sample size yes, but it is representative of my issue.
The play at 10NL and 25NL as compared to 50NL seems much looser and reckless. Less folding even when giving poor pot odds and suck outs with ridiculous holdings. Tightening up alone doesn't seem to work overall.
My question is, should just forget about trying to beat the lowest stakes and play at 50NL looking to move up from there, or is there important knowledge still to be gained at the lower levels?
Thanks!
Great question, and I'll do my best to answer it based on my personal experience.
The recommendation of working your way up thru the limits is a valid one and is appropriate for people who don't have the means to start with a nice
bankroll.
If you feel that you've learned what you need to learn from a 'foundations' perspective and have the means to start with a proper bankroll for 50nl (at least $2k) then by all means go for it.
Nothing says you have to 'prove yourself at each limit', it's just a challenge that some people like to take on (and it can be a good rule for people who haven't learned money management / emotional control yet).
On to my personal story
I learned my skills by playing $5.50 SNGs and working by way up to $109s (with some shots at $215s and $320). After which I transitioned to cash games.
Once I got to cash games I started at 100NL because i had more than enough bankroll for it ($10k in my case) and playing smaller limits wouldn't stimulate me enough for me to be engaged (even if I played a lot of tables).
From there I worked up to 200nl, 400nl, and even 1000nl. But, the only time I played 50nl or smaller there was when I was making training videos. Because from a time/hourly perspective it didn't make sense for me to play those games just to 'prove i could' or whatever.
Now I didn't play much 600nl or 2000nl because the style of play in those particular limits were ones I had much more difficulty with (surprisingly that was not the case with 1000nl). But if there was a good game running at 2000nl or even 5000nl I wasn't afraid to sit in and take a shot when my bankroll allowed it.
If I'd thought of myself strictly as a 400nl player or whatever it would've limited me from getting in good games and lucrative opportunities. The same is true if I had strict rules about when i was allowed to play a bigger game. Those rules are for people who don't have the discipline to only get in good games and are prone to chasing losses. But I had discipline and I didn't have to worry about that.
Now contrast to my friend Greg Merson.
He loved the style of play in the 600nl and 2000nl+ games so even when his bankroll was a little 'short' he would get in those games. Why?
Because his style performed better in those games while he found the tighter 400nl and 1000nl games to be boring and not stimulating (even though he could beat them). He also knew he had the means to reload a chunk bankroll if he ever needed it, so risk of ruin wasn't an issue and it made sense for him to just get into the games that were best for him so that he could maximize his edge, his hourly rate and his
expected value.
This sounds like it's similar to your case. And if for certain you do better in the 50nl environment because your style suits it better, then go for it. Know that you have a small sample, and that it's important to have enough money behind (or a strong enough income outside poker) that the swings won't effect you strongly emotionally, because that's where the risk comes in.
It's really about knowing where you perform best, and where that sweet spot of being in 'flow' is based on the games being challenging enough, but not too challenging. Based on the money being meaningful enough that it excites you a bit, but not so much that it stressed you out. And just being honest with yourself about that.
So... there are 2 examples of different cases where the approach was different.
The short answer is No, you don't need to 'prove you can beat every limit'. And there may even be cons to playing in the really small stakes games which are often considered a 'rake trap'. Your goal should be playing as high as you can (most of the time) where you still maintain an edge (and don't feel overly stressed) because this is what will yield you the most money per hour invested and probably the most satisfaction as well.
Hope that helps and hope the stories added a little bit of perspective.
Good luck on the tables my friend, get stackin!
P.S. If you want any extra theory videos for free, checkout my best of playlist
http://gripsed.com/win 
