I've managed to build my bankroll back up to the point of being able to try the $200 game again sometimes (for some reason, perhaps statistical variation, I had trouble at the $50 this time but seem to do extremely well at the Stars $100 game pretty consistently).

Anyhow, this was what I ran into: A LOT of heavily raised short-handed pots with very aggro play. This is the kind of game that I have major trouble dealing with (and was also, as I recall, the main source of my problem at the $400).

At the $200, there are a few possible ways to deal with this:

1) Change tables (have to throw that one in).

2) Play cautiously during the short-handed raisy phases and wait until some clear soft players sit down. The game does usually hit some lulls where you can see flops for cheap, but these 3- and 4-way flops almost always in raised pots that I find very difficult to make progress in.

3) Deal with it. This is obviously what eventually has to happen, but I'm not sure exactly how. In a 3-way (heavily) raised pot, a lot of rainbow-ish (or at least not ds) wraps seem to lead often to a lot of bleeding, and even if they're ds, it gets pretty tough wondering if your 7-high flush is worth anything at all. I'm also not sure about perhaps re-raising a lot of big semi-coordinated ds hands, which I almost prefer to AA there due to the deception value.

I'm also thinking that it's probably critical to go ahead and grab the initiative oneself in the last 3 seats with a fairly wide range of hands (at least "top 12%", however one is going to define that).

Anyhow, my last attempt at the $200 started really well when I had a nut full with some action (not stack, but very good pot), then a guy raised me when I had the nut flush (also in a raised pot). I repotted, and he folded. But after that, I ended up only with a very slight winning session after bleeding away a lot in various situations.

Another problem I have is whether to wait for something pretty serious (as I suppose was the best strategy at this particular table--at least judging from the hands where I made some good profits) or try to use some counter-aggression myself on marginal holdings (overpair, for example) in various situations.

Any other suggestions as to how to deal with this kind of table--basically semi-tight and extremely aggro?

I'm really guessing that the reason I do well at the $100 is a combination of scared money and loose/stupid at that game, but that kind of play often seems to stop at the $200.

As far as I can tell the 200s play much the same as the 100s, with a tiny bit more aggression and a few less really dreadful players. Many people seem to play both levels. I've never had any trouble winning at 100 or 200 and don't think I play appreciably differently at either level. Perhaps you're playing the wrong tables?

Yeah, I get into this mode of buying pots at times and then overdo it. I've learned to calm it down a lot, though. I think I really need to work largely on raising and calling raises. That's where I tend to get into trouble.

It's not 70 PTBB/100 but just regular BB, and I only have a little over 2k hands at the $100 level. Still, this number has to be inflated (and isn't consistent with fairly marginal winnings at the $50, which I abandoned as soon as I had met my criteria for moving up to the $100 again). I think I've just had fewer suckouts at the $100 than anywhere else, and my bluffs also seem to work better.

On the every hand thing, I'm a bit burned at the moment. I was playing 50% plus at the $200 at one point, and that was where the trouble started. At the moment, I'm striving for a nice 30%, which seems to me golden (less with lots of raised pots, a little more otherwise). Anyhow, I feel like hand selection is something I need to work on more than LAG-ing, at least for now ...

I don't know about stars, but the $200 on UB plays very different from the $100. The $200 often have some extremely wild/aggressive players, as well as some higher stakes players who are not able to find a good $400 or $1k game.
For one thing, I've hardly ever seen a bluff succeed at that level. At the $100 I buy quite a few small pots, but at the $200 I wouldn't even dream of trying a naked A bluff, since you simply get repotted by a baby flush.

Really, the only reason that I'm not playing the $200 all of the time is the variance and the fact that I haven't been running very well. There's good money in that game (as long as you select the right players), so you should try and play there if your roll allows it. One thing I'd recommend is to play very tight and straightforward for a bunch of sessions. I'm pretty sure that if you are in a good game you'll still show a profit with that strategy while getting better reads on your opponents.

I Think 30-40BB/100 is probably sustainable for a very good player playing only 2, maybe 3 tables in very good 100PLO games. Probably closer to 30 to be honest.

Yeah, realistically, I think 30 is about as high as you can get on a regular basis if you're crushing the game. I will say that I only single-table, which certainly helps with BB/100, although not necessarily with BB/hour. I've just never liked multi-tabling, but that's a matter of taste. Hence, I also would LIKE to be able to move up to the biggest game I can afford and beat. For some reason, the $100 just almost always seems to treat me right...