Well, I treat higher stakes more like fencing, anyway - find each opponents weakness and try to exploit it while defending the weaknesses they are trying to exploit in me. Whereas for low stakes (call this laziness, lack of information, or more brain power diverted elsewhere), I generally try to exploit the table idiot, but just treat everyone else like the mob.
An example - high stakes, a 3bet bluff works much better than at low stakes. Conversely, a checkraise bluff often works better at middle stakes than it does at high stakes.
In the end, we mostly agree that in the end poker is about brainpower and adapting to your surroundings and if you can't adapt to your current stake, I don't recommend moving to a higher stake. However, there are occassions where a particular higher stake might be better for an inflexible someone, at least for a while until their opponent's learn their game and exploit their inflexibility.
An example - high stakes, a 3bet bluff works much better than at low stakes. Conversely, a checkraise bluff often works better at middle stakes than it does at high stakes.
In the end, we mostly agree that in the end poker is about brainpower and adapting to your surroundings and if you can't adapt to your current stake, I don't recommend moving to a higher stake. However, there are occassions where a particular higher stake might be better for an inflexible someone, at least for a while until their opponent's learn their game and exploit their inflexibility.