100NL vs. 400NL

I was talking with hookem yesterday why recently I've been playing poorly at 100NL but really well at 400NL and 600NL. He suggested that the smaller stakes don't mean as much - it hurts less to lose, whereas losing a 100BB pot at 600NL really stings (1K + ... ugh).

My goal yesterday was to make $100.00 before ending for the day. Twice I reached it and was about to unpost when these hands happened:

At 100NL (can't fold to donk, can I?) - http://www.pokerhand.org/?1012576

At 200NL (textbook cooler) - http://www.pokerhand.org/?1012581

Eventually I gambled it up and got my $100.00. I was happy. I also think that even at 200NL the money per hour is REALLY good - at least 3-4 times as much as I make at my daytime job. So I decided to play there today until I got to $21,500. It took 36 minutes to make ~$400. Yes, I came from behind to win a pot off someone, but I just played really well.

Key race: http://www.pokerhand.org/?1012599

Not sure whether I will play 200NL or 400NL next session ... I kind of want to stop for a little bit and enjoy how far I've come before I go back to the more stressful 400-600NL.