You said in a post of ur blog "For a lot of people struggling at the micros I often recommend that they make a plan to get to NL25 as soon as possible".

What would be the minimal BI from nl10->nl25 and then->nl50?

Modern Small Stakes is aimed roughly at limits ranging from NL10-NL100 so I would say yes.

This is going to be different for everybody depending on your goals in this game. However the number that I suggest in the book for someone looking to make a slow but steady climb through these stakes is 40 or 50 buyins for each limit.

The standard thinking for a long time was 20 buyins. However, I think that downswings of this length are possible even for very good players at some of these stakes in today's games. If you only have a 20 buyin roll and a downswing of this intensity happens to you, then say goodbye to your entire bankroll. Of course you should have moved down well before this happens but someone with a larger bankroll would not have to waste their time doing this in the first place.

With all of that said if your goal is to rapidly move up the limits and you have the discipline to move up and down when necessary then 20 buyins can be a reasonable amount for some people as well. So that is the absolute "minimal" number as you asked for in my opinion.

Although the book is well written and neatly presented some of the content and the strategy suggested in certain spots is absolutely absurd. In this book, Nathan advocates a 0% flatting range in the BB vs a LP AND SB open. Instead he suggests a depolarized 3 betting range and folding everything else. I don't know how much 50nl/100nl you've played over the past year but this suggested strategy is ludicrous and would not fair well at all at the higher end small stakes games.

Hi hurtNCYDE,

Thanks for the feedback. I agree that having a 0% flatting range versus many of the better regs from the blinds versus an LP or BvB steal would certainly be exploitable especially at the upper limits of the small stakes. However, the section of the book that you are referring to is in regards to playing versus an unknown opponent. I go on to mention that versus the better regs I do in fact have a flatting range in these spots. There are examples in the book where this is covered as well.

A lot of the preflop sections of the book that focus on opening hand, flatting and 3Betting ranges were intended to be baseline strategies where there is no information on the opponent. They are also included because despite the fact that this book is intended for higher limits many newer players who lack any sort of coherent preflop strategy will still read this book.

In the custom opening hand, flatting and 3Betting range sections I discuss where adjustments can be made when we do have information on our opponents. I also use the 100+ examples in the book to illustrate where adjustments and balancing should be made against known regs.

Hope this helps.

Hi,

Haven't got far into the book yet but some of your 'ideal' suggested stats seem ridiculous for 50NL/100NL games. Personally I play 50NL 6max zoom, and if you fold 56% to flop cbets you're going to get raped by any half-decent reg at the limit. 74% cbet % is similarly too high though fewer are capable of exploiting it. If you combine all your PFR and suggested cbet stats (20%*74%*52%*56%) you're raising then triple barrelling close to an 8% range on average which is EXTREMELY wide. As I haven't read further I can't tell whether this is value-heavy or bluff-heavy but if it's balanced your checking ranges are going to be ridiculously weak.

Also, I'm not sure you have yet realised quite how many hands 'fold to river float bet' takes to converge (and also because it's an oft-misinterpreted stat it could do with being explained in the book). Recently, I reviewed a student's database of 40k hands at 5NL. The total number of samples on 'fold to river float bet' was 9 (NINE). This doesn't seem too unreasonable considering for a sample to be gained, hero needs to raise preflop AND be called AND cbet the flop AND have the flop cbet called AND cbet the turn AND have the turn cbet called AND check the river AND face a river bet. You do mention that 'some stats require huge sample sizes' but this one is going to be practically useless for anyone who doesn't use datamined hands.

Also, re: this paragraph 'I am not going to get into a deep discussion of statistics here because I am no expert anyways. We simply need to use a bit of common sense when assessing the statistical reliability of our information. Clearly a sample size of one or two opportunities is not going to be very useful. However, if an opponent has had ten or more opportunities to perform a certain action, then we can start forming some reasonable conclusions about their play' - I don't have a complaint about the accuracy of this information but considering a common leak in poker is to view statistical significance as a binary factor, I don't think it's really detailed enough.

I mean, I'm sure the book improves and I will finish it, I just don't think this section in particular is very good.

Can you please post a link? I read BR's blogs but I don't remember him saying this, and I'd just like to get a feel for the CONTEXT of this quote. Taken out of context it seems like ludicrous advice - nobody should be playing 25NL unless they've played sufficient volume at lower levels to feel confident that their skill level is up to the necessary snuff, ESPECIALLY not those who have struggling at levels even lower than that.

That advice applied to people who play on Stars, where playing the micros will not get you much effective rakeback.

http://www.blackrain79.com/2013/12/s...-for-2014.html

Hello pll.

Nathan's first book was my first book about cash games when i start play nl2.I follow him at him personal blog and watch all his videos over and over again.
I dont read the socond book yet but am sure that its awesome!

I am well aware that the "ideal stats" will likely be scrutinized very heavily in this book. I thought about not including them many times and tried to provide as many caveats as possible before presenting them. The reason that I chose to include them however is because my goal when writing a poker book is to provide the most practical ("do this") type of approach for the reader as possible. I want them to have a clear understanding of how to translate what I write into success at the tables.

This of course opens me up to plenty of criticism though because there is rarely one line in a given spot or a certain set of stats that are the only way to win in this game. This is also the case when we are talking about several different stakes. There are obviously clear differences between the way that the games play at NL10 and NL100 for instance. However, nobody is ever going to write a poker book about an individual limit. I have to make some generalities.

Here is the other thing as well. These stats that you are referring to are not based on my opinion. Rather, they are the average winning stats from the biggest winners at the stakes covered in this book based off of my own database. You can find big winners who fold to flop CBets for instance at 40% or 70% of the time across any of these stakes. Which is better? Well, it often boils down the the individual style of play and their ability to make it work for them. I am sure that the debate will rage on and I really welcome your feedback. I don't regret including these numbers though and I hope that most people who read this book will view them as the rough suggestions that I repeatedly tried to present them as.

Regarding the fold to river float bet stat. Yes, it takes a long time to converge. However I have found it useful enough over much smaller samples than the one that you suggested. I also often use it in combination with other stats as I discuss in some examples later in the book. This is a stat that can depend heavily on the individual style of play though as well. For instance, somebody who doesn't double barrel very often (or who triple barrels a lot) will obviously create far less opportunities for themselves to fold to a river float bet than somebody who plays the opposite.

If you do not find this stat to be useful enough in the games that you play in though then you can absolutely just remove it. There is no question that it's usefulness is limited over smaller sample sizes and against certain player types. My recommended HUD is not perfect. I am constantly thinking of new ways to improve it. Once again, thanks for the input.

I can see how what I wrote there could be misinterpreted. I have just edited the blog post (linked above) to remove the word "struggling." Here was my intention with what I wrote there. Rakeback does not really kick in especially on a site like Pokerstars until NL25. I advise people to get to this limit as quickly as possible but I go on to say "with a proper plan and bankroll management strategy in mind." I was not trying to infer that someone who is struggling at stakes below NL25 should jump up to this limit and hope for the best. Rather, based on the assumption that they have already proven themselves to be a winning player at NL2, NL5 and NL10 they should take calculated shots at NL25 sooner rather than later.

I saw that someone pasted the link above
I understood that someone who already beat the limits like nl2, 5 and 10, with enough hands and winrate, should try a quick move up (with a correct bankroll management) because of the rake back.
I'm still nl10 player and will try a move up with 40 bi

Blackrain is the best 2nl/5nl player hands down,but i would take his advice for 25nl + with a pinch of salt... few years ago he had an attempt to move up and failed,he couldn't beat 25n/50nl for more than 1bb/100,what makes anybody think he is competent in today's games? I'm not a hater,but i would like to see his results for 25nl + for the last 2 years in this thread or on his website.Show your results 'rain,please.

This is starting to get a bit silly now. I have a record of crushing these games for nearly 10 years now which has been heavily documented on my blog. I chose to stop publishing my results a few years back exactly because of comments like this. My PTR became one of the most heavily searched profiles in the world for a time before they stopped tracking Stars. Every time I had a downswing all of my anonymous detractors would come out of the woodwork and proclaim it as proof that I was terrible or that I had "failed" somehow.

I don't know any other poker author for whom this is even an issue. In fact many of the most popular authors today are on record as having not actively played the game in years. Most of them have no real history (that I am aware of) in the online poker world as far as results are concerned either. My results were published on page one of my first book. Since this is a non-issue for every other poker author out there I decided to keep my results to myself this time as well.

I would prefer to keep this thread on the contents of this book. I think that is what most people reading this thread are interested in. I probably won't have much more to say on this matter.

I think people are really starting to miss a point here. Even though I bought the book on day 1, I haven't yet finished it. Didn't get the chance to. But it's pretty clear that it's extremely detailed and example heavy. So NOT general. Which means it really shouldn't matter what the credentials of the person writing it are. If a losing player would have written this book, then by using your own critical thinking skills and judgement, or even trying out the strategies to see if they work, you would quickly come to the conclusion that this is BS.

I think, by not posting results, is doing us a favor. "Poker strategies" isn't some broad, philosophical, untoachouble, "can't quite put my finger on it" topic. It's pretty straight forward. Author says x, you think about x and how it would apply to your game. Does x work or not? You try it over a sample and make a decision.

What I'm trying to say is that it's really important in this particular instance to judge the content and not the one who delivers it.
You see this so many times. People watching some video of someone who crushes their stake and that they really admire. They see some fancy move and automatically incorporate it into their game without even thinking about why that person did the move, would it work for their style of play, etc. Just because "i saw it in his video--he crushes--therefore it will work".

Everything should be taken with a grain of salt. Always. Just my 2 long cents.

Blackrain79's books and videos are excellent IMO. He tells you what you need to do to win now for the stakes he is describing. It's something like this: "Just do this, do that, don't do this and you will crush". I went from crap to 20bb/100 at the micros partly due to blackrain. If your starting out and new to the game or struggling with low winrates at the micros you owe it to your self to check out his videos on dragthebar and his book crushing the micros.

Now to Modern small stakes from a person who the book is wrote for, someone leaving the micros and entering small stakes. I'm about 3/4s of the way through I will not give a full review as I haven't finished it yet, but from what I have read here are my opinions:

Excellent villain type break downs: modern small stakes describes the villain types you will encounter at their stakes their HUD stats, their tendencies, their weaknesses, and how to exploit them etc.
Excellent pre-flop guide: Covering everything from opening ranges to 3 bet calling, 3 bet, 4 bet etc., how to adapt range to fish in blinds, how to iso. etc. Lots here.
Excellent break down of all streets whether you were the caller, raiser, 3 better etc.
plenty of example hands after each section using villain HUD stats and player types.
It's not a book you can just skim over you will have to read it re-read it and study, but that's a very good thing.
Plenty of other things covered in the book like game selection and how to study.
The book talks about ranges and frequencies (gathered by our HUD) and using this information to make our decision.
Happy I bought the book.

Lol

Sometimes I despair that we'll ever move these threads out of the mud and into the daylight.

Nathan has written two very fine books. The first one was groundbreaking in examing micro stakes and the new book adds real value to the library of micro/small stakes thinking. It's thorough and the hand discussions alone are worth the money.

His videos on DTB speak for themselves and yes, I've enjoyed paying for some of his coaching as well...and I read the blogs.

And so what do we get in this thread...a shout out about "show us your stats"...when what we deserve is a thorough examination of the thinking behind the book.

I really couldn't care a toss about his stats when his published work speaks loudly on its own. Can we move on, please.

Exactly what i thought about you mate,there is no reason to keep your results private unless there are no good results. Now let's the hate begin

Estimated date for kindle?

Im really interested.

I don't have a date right now. I am working on it though.

Hi everyone I bought this book 1 day after It was available I don't know if I was the first buyer I don't know but before that I bought this book I was dealing with nl10 I have already beaten nl4 but nl10 was eating my bankroll then when I got the book at 11:30 pm I stared to read it I didn't care that I have had to work to the next day I have read 50 page of this book in my first day with it when I was reading this book at that moment I felt that It would help me to improve my game so I stared to read it every day making notes in my job in my home while I was eating or when I have had free time and rapidly I stared to see result in my game may be these are a few hands but I know that this is no varianza it could be but I don't think so when I'm in the table I'm making decisions in base of what I have learned in the book so believe me guy this book is amazing this book is full of strategist and experiences of blackrain79 that are going to help you to move your game at the next level thanks blackrain79 for this book and if there is going to be an other one I'll buy it and other thing that I have learned in blackrain79's first book (Crushing the micro stacks) poker is like life it rewards the hard workers that make the sacrifice of read,watch coaching poker videos and never stop to learn.

''Pain is temporally it may last for a minute for an hour or even a year but eventually something else will take its place if I quit however it will last for ever'' -Eric Thomas-

these are my result before and after may be they are a few samples of hands but you can see the different in 10,000 when you are playing good poker and wrong poker. (July 28)



https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.n...24470541_n.jpg

Congrats! Will definitely be picking up volume 2 when I get new computer setup next month.

Sent from my HP 7 using 2+2 Forums

foxintheshadow: If you're who I think you are (Merge?), I'll be very very happy when you move up past NL10 because you are one of maybe 2 or 3 players in the entire 4NL base who are a PAIN THE *** for me to play against . (I'm still at 4NL but hoping to move up to 10NL when I have 20BI)

EDIT: I hope you took that as a compliment because that's how I meant it!!!