I started playing NL on March 20 at the 6-max $25 tables (.10/.25 blinds) on Party. Since then I have been pretty successful and have kept a positive win rate since then upwards of 7PTBB/100. Not great, but I ran cold at the $100 tables for a while after running up a nice bankroll on those. However, recently I have been playing more full ring tables at the $100 and $200 (.5/1 and 1/2 blinds) levels and my results say that I'm doing better there. My hypothesis is that I'm trying to push too hard at the 6-max tables and I can't push people around the same way that I could at the $25 and $50 levels. The play is much better and tighter at the $200 level for sure. By playing the full rings, I'm able to change up my game a little bit more and my hands aren't quite as readable. But maybe I'm just a big ###### and suck too...that's a distinct possibility.
Since May 1:
Full rings ($100 and $200 NL/PL) - $1,918 (11PTBB/100) over 5,126 hands
Short handed ($100 and $200 NL) - ($605) (-2.53PTBB/100) over 8,500 hands
I think I better stick to the full rings, eh?
Anyway, the question for you all is...do you find that the play is better/worse at higher limits at the 6-max tables or full ring tables. Also, have you personally made a switch from full ring games to short handed games as you have moved up (or vice-versa)? Finally, do you find that your style of play changes (i.e. your VP$IP, etc.) as you have moved up or down limits?
Obviously, I know that style plays a big part in playing 6-max v. full rings and I also know that it takes a different set of skills to play a certain level (limit) successfully. But I guess I'm looking for a deeper discussion than that. Experiences? Good luck

.
Andy