100BB vs 200BB... Eureka!

Earlier this week I was in a discussion on 2+2, debating if it is more efficient to buy-in for 200BB or 100BB when playing NL on AP. Since I have made good money buying-in for the max (200BB), I stuck to my guns and disagreed with the shorter buy-in theory. But then I had a change of thought. I had a PM conversation with a very solid regular and came to the conclusion that I would give the 100BB theory a shot. So last night I bought in for 4 tables of $200 (100BB) instead of 4 tables of $400 (200BB). Here are the results...

Up $500 (2.5 buy-ins) for the night. I found that I played my stack more efficiently with 100BB compared to 200BB. Below are my two big hands for the night.

Hand 1 - 22 vs QQ
I don't believe I would of gotten paid off by my all-in move on the river if had $327(200 BB) behind instead of $127(100 BB). Also I think my turn-check sealed the deal on this hand, had I bet the turn I am sure he would have folded. NH.

Hand 2 - 99 vs JT
This hand worked out well, villian is putting me on an overpair by the looks of it. Once again I don't feel I would have made the most out of this hand with 200BB compared to 100BB.

In other news, I now have 8k and need to make a short term goal. I am thinking of taking a shot at 2/4 NL with 100BB ($400) sometime soon or maybe just continue to grind 1/2 NL until I have 10k and then take a shot? What are your thoughts, leave a comment.