Change of plan!

My original plan was to stick at the £1.00+£.20 single table SNG's until I got to £100, then switch to the £3.00+£.60 and try and make it to £300.

Anyway, yesterday and today I've had a very bad run on the £1.00 tables, people call my good hands with any old rubbish and when they hit their fluke, they comment "ah well it's only a quid, was worth the risk". So I thought I would give the £3.00 tables a try. It's so much nicer! People actually play poker and I feel that my "skills" can actually be put to use, people start to understand pot odds - rather than just thinking "I might hit a straight, it's only a quid, all-in...!".

So, out of two £3.00 games, I've come 2nd twice (@£9.00 payout each) and just about recovered from all my £1.00 losses. I know, it's an AWFUL sample size, but it just feels nicer and I'm getting confident in my skills (having just completed Harrington vol 1 for the 3rd time, volume 2 is in the post!).

Therefore I am changing to "operation £3.00" with immediate effect and will say how I do. Wish me luck on my new £3.00 SNG home :)

Luck.

People playing badly is never the source of your problems. Poker players who actually make money at the game by skill only make that money at the expense of other's lack of skill (relatively). The best table you can be at is one where your opponents make a lot of mistakes. You must remember this is your only source of income in poker ... the mistakes of your opponents.
This is not to say that the higher stakes table does not have as many mistake makers. These players may play a more solid game overall, but lose something because they are more predictable (which is also a mistake). Very loose play (bad play) can pose a problem to many otherwise good players because loose play is inherently more unpredictable than tight play ... they could have anything, so how do you know where you are at?
Tight players can be just as bad as loose players. A loose player that is aggressive can be better than a tight player that is passive. You may be a better player against the tight passive bad player than the loose aggressive bad player, and could very well see much better results at the higher stake.
But, you should strive to learn to beat all kinds of bad players. Why move up when you have such a low risk opportunity to learn how to beat a certain kind of bad player? I've known people who can't stand playing the loose players, and think they lose because their opponents are bad. They are dead wrong ... they lose because they don't know how to beat such opponents, or refuse to learn or adjust their game for them. Want to be a great poker player? Learn to beat every kind of bad player. Then learn to beat every kind of decent player, then the above average players ... you stand to gain the most from the worst player ... they make the worst mistakes, right?