An affordability question

Recently we've had some discussions about the value and advisability of calling large raises with only small advantages. The prevailing consensus is that it's better ring strategy than tournament strategy. In regards to the ring games, the mantra seems to be, "if you can't afford to make the call, you're playing at too high a limit", but that has always seemed to me to be more of a repremand than an answer. This kind of blanket statement is taken as conventional wisdom and rarely gets challenged despite the likelyhood that, upon occasion, we all step up a level or 2 in limits; if for no other reason than to stretch our wings. Even if the next level up is still affordable, it's unqestionably less so regardless of the size of your BR.

I'm not sure that there's a one size fits all strategy for poker. I would think that the less affordable the limit is, the more important it becomes to reduce variance. Could it be that under certain conditions, one could to let some borderline positive EV oportunities pass at higher, therefore less affordable limits, and still have a possitive expectation for the session as a whole?

I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this, but I've attached a poll to encourage participation from some of our members who might be reluctant to post a reply.

Hmmmm, I would have to say that my play doesn't change too much no matter what the levels. And I have played at higher than I should levels. Sometimes it's more of a hit and run play. Hit the big pot at the upper levels and run back down to the lower levels with my cash.

I try to keep my game consistent regardless of the limits I'm playing. I say that even though I know I tend to tighten up at higher stakes. I've played at limits over my head before but I try to consider the money I bring to the table as already lost...

When I bump up a limit or two I usually play tight/passive in big pots but much more loose/aggressive in small pots.