Buy-in v Stakes

As far as I undestand it we tend to describe NLHE tables by the buy-in (i.e. $5NL) and LHE by the stakes (so $5/10 ).

Now I was playing with my new copy of PokerOffice and noticed that my games from Titan POker were classidied at ($0.05/$0.10). I thought this was irritating at first, but then today when I came to find a table the only non-empty types had a max buy-in of $5.

So it's sort of like $5NL, but the stakes are like my normal $10NL games on Party.

What difference does this make? I mean, it means the blinds are proportionately higher, is this bad? I can't see why except that it increases your risk (doubles it from "normal" $5nl) but halves the possible reward (except it doesn't because after a while there's at least a third of the table with 2 buy-ins in their stack).

I mean a lot of people here are very against playing as half-buy-ins, but in a sense everyone is on these tables.

shallow stacks are good because they make hands like AK, KQ, and QJ go up in value.

shallow stacks are bad because they make hands like 22-99 and 45s-78s practically worthless.

Play in a 100bb game.

Deep stacks favours the better post-flop players, and that is usually the better players. So if you believe you get a skill edge in the game, go for a deep stacked game.