"I couldn't beat 25 nl over the course of a good sample size, but I beefed up my bankroll and have been crushing 100 nl" a statement like this or something similar is something I have heard in the past from other players and recently from a friend who I have known to be a winning live player over the course of the last several years. Is there anything to this or is this just a case of short term variance? Is there a fundamental difference in strategy and theory as to why a "winning players" strategy could be effective at a game like 100 nl and not transfer to 25 nl? Shouldn't over a large sample size the 25 nl game be "softer" and lead to higher profitability in relation to bb?