Coaching Poker Forums

I think some people might have suggested this already, but why not just have coaches update results every quarter or so in their bio. Everyone that is a DC coach would be required to do so. No need to out screen names, but just have a person a DC verify results and then add to the bio.

My point wasn't to disparage Steve. I personally found his vids to be very good. I just think making the information available would be good for DC as a whole. Then potential students can use the information as they see fit. As I said some people give WR and volume more weight than others. Also, I think it would prevent threads like this from popping up in the future.

Such an epic thread. So impressed with DC that it wasn't locked ....

Exactly what I was thinking. I thought DC would "lock" this thread after the very first few posts. Was kind of surprised to see it turn into a full-blown discussion/debate.

My point wasn't to disparage Steve. I personally found his vids to be very good. I just think making the information available would be good for DC as a whole. Then potential students can use the information as they see fit. As I said some people give WR and volume more weight than others. Also, I think it would prevent threads like this from popping up in the future.

I understand what are you saying, but I dont think they really need to post that information. But I do think the information should be availible upon request by potental players looking for coach's.

If the player is hiring a coach those graphs are definitely something the player should be asking for. They should be asking for those graphs so the player can use it as one of the variables in deciding on who to hire.

So yes the information needs to be availible but I think its only needed as a request. if a coach has real life issues for a month and then runs bad for a month, those graphs are going to look like crap. Then if people see that they are going to think that coach sucks because of a 3month graph.

Kosin Trouble

i just found my name and my ft ptr graph on first site of this thread. dont have a ton of time since im going to leave in 45 min towards airport for my first us experience. vegas here i come, wsop here i come
i just flew over some posts with all the tubasteve things, people mention coaches should post graphs etc
i think it is VERY important to be transparent and it is VERY important to check coaches´ activities and actual level - obv not only when they become a coach, but also later, if they still beat the games (that are prolly tougher now than at the time when they got coach) they are playing; short: if they are worth to be a coach
i think that everything else is not responsible towards the members.
for me personally...my ptr graph looks like crap - things i have to say is that i dont play at FT at all anymore, because of better rake/cash out/currency conditions on euro sites, also because i prefer a smaller player pool since history with regs and so on gets more important and i think the player with the edge (what i think i am in my games obv) get the profit from this. also obv ptr didnt track all my hands for w/e reasons and the sample is small (llok at the dates)
what i can say is that i started with 200 € deposit and i play up to 10/20 and my regular game is 3/6 now. the money doesnt come from my parents or coaching fees
i think i dont have to justify at all, its more to explain my idea why there should be a wider view than a ptr graph. and obv samplesizes are prolly never enough (eg within a year) to really show what a specific player would have deserved.
further i think (dunno if this was written before) that a great player and a great coach are two different kind of things. still a great coach has to be a very good player by nature
and obv samplesizes are prolly never enough (eg within a year) to really show what a specific player would have deserved.
because ptr means so much to a lot of people i often get asked via pm by people that are interested in coaching(eg because of videos because they liked the content or style or w/e) what i can refer to. i give them AIM etc from actual or former students, get them in my TV and show them my HEM (in which im obv winnings, at higher stakes than ptr has ever tracked, and in games of 2010).
also i have a blog now for a while (www.darndao.com) where anyone can read what i think. esp the first blogs in categorie poker may be interesting
i think it is very important that people ask these kinda questions and there is not a second i think this thread is bad. even the opposite. very worst thing to happen is that people pay money to a person that calls himself a coach that isnt worth it. so its important for any person to be critical and to question things.
personally i havent cared too much about that ptr thing - when i got contact with potential students and we began working with each other with very few expections students were highly satisfied with the way of coaching and the profit they took out of this.
gotta leave to airpot now, i will certainly read though this whole thread if ill arrive and hope discussion continues
martin

Definitely agree with Krumpy and ambtndplyr in that there definitely should be more transparency and coach's bios should be updated at least a couple of times a year. Tubasteve, thanks for taking the time to update the community with results and all. I'm glad you did and hope it has positive effects on everyone, including DC itself.

Just thought I'd chime in and say that I got coaching from Steve when I was playing 25nl last year. He definitely helped improve my game and my poker mindset in general. I've made over 50k from poker and Steve was the guy that got the ball rolling. I still talk to him on AIM multiple times a week and bug him about my random retardation with computers/technology. He really couldn't be a nicer guy, and really cares about his students improving and is also willing to talk about just general life stuff if poker's got you down.

If the player is hiring a coach those graphs are definitely something the player should be asking for. They should be asking for those graphs so the player can use it as one of the variables in deciding on who to hire.

But I think this is the problem the current system. There is no independent third party to vet the results. I wouldn't think that coaches would necessarily feel comfortable outing their screenames to everyone that asked and as a result a student can never feel 100% sure that the results they are being presented are accurate. With DC acting as an independent third party the coach doesn't have to give their screename to anyone that asks and the student can feel comfortable that the results they are being presented are accurate.

if a coach has real life issues for a month and then runs bad for a month, those graphs are going to look like crap. Then if people see that they are going to think that coach sucks because of a 3month graph.

This is true to some extent but students will be able to see they are a winner in the long term. Also, as many people have said WR, volume, and short term results are only part of the decision process in choosing a coach. Some people will feel that this information is more important than others, but at least the information would be available and it's up to the student to decide what is most important to them.

In the future we hope to make our scoring criteria and the scores public, assuming we receive enough data.

Krantz--

I agree, this discussion has been really good! Otis and the original poster made some great points.

Many sites make ALL feedback available, then just show the number of results it is based on. Wouldn't short term variance take forever to work out in a review mode? (takes a lot of poker hand for sure)

which

Mike the Mad, Otis, Krumpy, and the rest ........

Thank you VERY MUCH!

It is hard to be someone pointing out issues on a member site. Many do not want to hear any negatives at all, but I am grateful for two things:

1. Y'all had the will to put up what you thought was a good idea towards a process of picking coaches.

2. Krantz, et al for letting the discussion go.

I found lots of good info to use picking coaches. I totally agree that the process of picking AND keeping a coach is a topic often overlooked.

I found a renewed sense of trust in DC. I like that Krantz came on, and that Tuba came back and explained some of his background. (Tuba, if I get into NL you will be first on my list for coaching--if you will have me . I can be dense)

I found folks who were willing disagree in a reasoned discussion. As I read the original post, and Otis' responses, I never thought it was personal. Talking in circles when examples exist, seems foolish. I hope Tuba felt the same as I did when initially reading it: this is a discussion about the principles behind coaching/learning a game that is hard to evaluate progress in.

Good stuff!

which

Just thought I'd chime in and say that I got coaching from Steve when I was playing 25nl last year. He definitely helped improve my game and my poker mindset in general. I've made over 50k from poker and Steve was the guy that got the ball rolling. I still talk to him on AIM multiple times a week and bug him about my random retardation with computers/technology. He really couldn't be a nicer guy, and really cares about his students improving and is also willing to talk about just general life stuff if poker's got you down.

In my opinion, these sorts of posts should matter a lot on selecting a coach. "I was coached by X, I have improved to this level and I still value his coaching". In poker skill is important in long term results, so if coaching improves skill, it should be seen in long term results. For coaches that have coached longer, there should be successful students. I think otis_nixon is quite correct in his view that he could spit out complete baloney to a beginner and get good reviews - especially if he is a nice guy. Most of the reviews on DC coaches seem to be made instantly after a session, but at least I would value more to see long-term success stories of the students.

A bad golf analogue, I would think that Hank Haney's (Tiger Woods' coach) coaching is more valuable than Tiger's coaching - especially because Hank has coached other players to win Majors as well. Is he as good of a player as Tiger? Not a chance, but he is still a very successful coach, if you look at his student's results.

On the pricing issue. I don't think a coaches wage should be determined by how much he makes for one hour playing poker. For the coach, the rate should be high enough for him/her to want to do it. In the customer perspective, it should be all about value. How much is one session worth for an average student? If the sessions are constantly worth more than the coach is charging and coach wants to coach for the rate, both sides get a good deal.

The thing that bothers me about all the golf analogies is that Hank Haney and Butch Harmon are both scratch+ golfers themselves. They're certainly not good enough to compete on the PGA tour, but they are both better than 99.9% of golfers in the world will ever be. They're also great teachers, which is what makes them top coaches. I really don't think a non-winning poker player is capable of teaching someone how to beat poker, no matter how many sports analogies we draw. Obviously being a winner doesn't mean that you're a great teacher - things may just come naturally to a poker player and he might not be able to explain why. So, being a winner is absolutely a necessary condition to being a good teacher, but it is not sufficient, IMO. I think the really interesting question is the value in coaching from someone who used to be a winning player but doesn't play the game anymore because he's moved on to other games or whatever.

In my opinion, these sorts of posts should matter a lot on selecting a coach. "I was coached by X, I have improved to this level and I still value his coaching". In poker skill is important in long term results, so if coaching improves skill, it should be seen in long term results.

Otis already went over this but there are so many factors that go into a players improvement that; coaching + improvement in results =/= (necessarily) coach caused improvement in results. People who seek coaching are hungry to improve regardless.

So, being a winner is absolutely a necessary condition to being a good teacher, but it is not sufficient, IMO. I think the really interesting question is the value in coaching from someone who used to be a winning player but doesn't play the game anymore because he's moved on to other games or whatever.

Probably the lower the level of the student, the more value there is. For the lower stakes the basics don't really change, and also for the higher stakes there is probably plenty of value. Things like exposing logic flaws, checking if the student is considering all relevant variables etc don't require up to date knowledge about the state of the game.

I understand what are you saying, but I dont think they really need to post that information. But I do think the information should be availible upon request by potental players looking for coach's.

I agree. If you want to know about a coach's info, ask them.

I do think it's a good idea that the bios be updated more frequently.

DC made public their vetting process some time ago, so I think it's clear coaches here aren't just random shmoes.

Ultimately, you have to do your own due diligence and decide how important certain things are to you.
If Joe Coach has 12 guys say they made money after getting coaching, but you think it was a bunch of other factors that made them good and the coaching was incidental, discount those statements.
If you think that a student can't evaluate a teacher because being a student means one can't, then ignore student testimonials.

If you think the guy doesn't win and he won't provide a graph, or you think you can't trust whether the graph is real, decide how important it is to not have or not believe graphs.

Otis_nixon posted his experiences, let's see what he did:
One coach he picked up essentially without a method (being the first coach, and early on, certainly understandable).
One coach he picked based on liking his videos.
Another he decided after one lesson that the coach was full of shit (an example of thinking for himself, though he was just the student)
And the fourth, he got a review from a student. Checked on the coach's results, presumably. Then decided if the coach made sense in his videos. Then used his referrer's results as credible evidence.


Nobody could do what otis-nixon did for him. Nothing DC can do should ever replace a coach-seeker's own responsibility to decide for him/herself.

A number of people have said something along the lines of mikefut's "I really don't think a non-winning poker player is capable of teaching someone how to beat poker, no matter how many sports analogies we draw." I am by nature an inventor of counterexamples, and I think it's pretty easy to come up with one, at least theoretically, for this point of view:

Imagine a player who is completely solid on the fundamentals, makes great reads, knows how to adjust to other players and changing game conditions, keeps up with the game's evolution, etc., and is a terrific teacher. There's just one thing: this player is a major-league tilter. He's put a lot of work into this, and the effect of this work has been to transform him from an utterly horrible tilter into someone who tilts far too much of the time. When he's playing his A game, he crushes the opposition; but when he's off his game he spews and spews and spews.

Suppose he showed you his graphs and said, "They suck. I know they suck. They suck because I tilt too much. So I don't play on my own account all that much any more. But I decided that if I couldn't beat the game myself, I would get satisfaction by helping other people, people like you, to beat the game."

Would you take lessons from this guy?