Coaching Poker Forums

krantz is a losing player on PTR too! can't trust anything he says!

lol j/k but my point is... i think we should make our decision on coaching by going through the math ourselves, looking at the advice our coach gives us and seeing if from a mathematical perspective does it hold water.

It doesn't even matter if your coach is a winning player, because there's alot behind the scenes, for instance all the 500/1k shots that you just can't know about.
(plus PTR isn't all that accurate anyway, it just give sa rough guide)

...MagicNinja is a great example...

I saw one of MagicNinga's posts (last week). He's a maniac.
I am guessing his videos are going to be very entertaining, as he doesn't seem to hold back on anything.

BTW, I still believe that, "Everyone's pinky is for sale -- at 1 trillion dollars" -- even MagicNinja's (no matter what he says).

krantz is a losing player on PTR too! can't trust anything he says!

lol j/k but my point is... i think we should make our decision on coaching by going through the math ourselves, looking at the advice our coach gives us and seeing if from a mathematical perspective does it hold water.

It doesn't even matter if your coach is a winning player, because there's alot behind the scenes, for instance all the 500/1k shots that you just can't know about.
(plus PTR isn't all that accurate anyway, it just give sa rough guide)

Well, it does matter if your coach is a winning player, it matters a lot, it's just not the only thing that matters. Great results are the most obvious indicator for knowing what you're talking about. The people we have vetting our roster are poker experts and teaching experts, as well as poker teaching experts. The point we want to make is that being a DC coach is an even better indicator that this coach is one of the best for the audience he/she teaches to. I can't speak for what any of the other training sites do, for what 2+2 does, but I can speak for the quality of instruction we provide here.

Well, it does matter if your coach is a winning player, it matters a lot, it's just not the only thing that matters. Great results are the most obvious indicator for knowing what you're talking about. The people we have vetting our roster are poker experts and teaching experts, as well as poker teaching experts. The point we want to make is that being a DC coach is an even better indicator that this coach is one of the best for the audience he/she teaches to. I can't speak for what any of the other training sites do, for what 2+2 does, but I can speak for the quality of instruction we provide here.

you misunderstood me, i meant "winner on PTR" not a winning player at all obv...

The point we want to make is that being a DC coach is an even better indicator that this coach is one of the best for the audience he/she teaches to.

Yeah, I think if this is the message we want to convey here at DC there should definitely be more transparency in the coaching selection process, definitely looking forward to that. Perhaps even to the point that all DC coaches should out their SNs and post some results. I just don't see the point in risking someone tarnishing the site's reputation or there being a feeling of uneasiness within the community. A lot of coaches/players have public SNs, I don't see why someone that wants to be backed up by a Top 3 poker training site would choose to hide it.

Yeah, whenever I was a coached I'd be more than happy to post up to date results. And when I get back into coaching I'll do this too. Not to sure why people want to hide it.

Well, it does matter if your coach is a winning player, it matters a lot, it's just not the only thing that matters. Great results are the most obvious indicator for knowing what you're talking about. The people we have vetting our roster are poker experts and teaching experts, as well as poker teaching experts. The point we want to make is that being a DC coach is an even better indicator that this coach is one of the best for the audience he/she teaches to. I can't speak for what any of the other training sites do, for what 2+2 does, but I can speak for the quality of instruction we provide here.

I am not trying to be a douche, but does that mean we should be asking for your graph if not the specific coach's, since you could be way off with poker and could be evaluating what coaches say from a wrong fundamental percpective?
If the person who chooses is bad, we can't rely on the fact that he was chosen, to evaluate.

I used to teach golf and I think there are a number of parallels between golf and poker instruction.

Most beginning golfers are given their first "lesson" from someone who is far from a professional golf instructor. However, this first lesson almost always results in more success for the beginner than if the beginner was without any instruction. The beginner's first "teacher" was in fact successful and effective on some level.

As the beginner progresses, he will be bombarded by swing advice from nearly every golfer he comes into contact with. Some of the information received will be helpful but most of the advice will range from slightly bad to absolutely terrible.

I bet everyone can remember at some point being told that AK is a drawing hand and should be limped pf.

When the new golfer finally seeks professional instruction he will have developed a multitude of bad habits. Most of these habits are quickly prioritized and easily identifiable to the instructor. At this point in the golfer's development, even a golf instructor who's been away from the game for 10 years would be extremely effective.

How many lessons did the instructor have to give before he became good at teaching beginners? How many books did he have to read? What score did he have to shoot before it was ok for him to give advice? When was the last time he had to shoot it?

I used to teach golf and I think there are a number of parallels between golf and poker instruction.

Most beginning golfers are given their first "lesson" from someone who is far from a professional golf instructor. However, this first lesson almost always results in more success for the beginner than if the beginner was without any instruction. The beginner's first "teacher" was in fact successful and effective on some level.

As the beginner progresses, he will be bombarded by swing advice from nearly every golfer he comes into contact with. Some of the information received will be helpful but most of the advice will range from slightly bad to absolutely terrible.

I bet everyone can remember at some point being told that AK is a drawing hand and should be limped pf.

When the new golfer finally seeks professional instruction he will have developed a multitude of bad habits. Most of these habits are quickly prioritized and easily identifiable to the instructor. At this point in the golfer's development, a golf instructor who's been away from the game for 10 years would be extremely effective.

How many lessons did the instructor have to give before he became good at teaching beginners? How many books did he have to read? What score did he have to shoot before it was ok for him to give advice? When was the last time he had to shoot it?

Thank you,

this is a great post. Slowly this thread becomes really bad.

Does anyone else find it quite hard to judge how good your coaches were from an informational perspective?

I've had probably 10 coaches in my career and I can say who's good/bad but most of those judgements comes from how professional they were/how much they wanted me to improve/etc, etc. If you got me to rank them in terms of how good they were at teaching (or how much good stuff the taught me) I'd have a ton of trouble differentiating them. And I think from this is where a lot of the trouble comes from, right now students assess coaches and I think they're really not in positions to accurately do so.
edit - although there's the 'selection process' for sites like this which is obv good.

Watching videos, asking past students, reading testimonials. All this is done by people at lower skill levels than the coach. It comes out time and time again with a BS coach that students didn't even know they were so bogus because of authority bias and what not, then higher level guys come in and are like 'yeah that guy was making no sense he was just talking shit'.

What I'm getting at is I think the only people that can accurately judge a coaches skill at coaching is someone who's better than the coach, yet the people we seek for the judgments are often below.
double edit - although the lower people can very accurately judge the professionalism, clarity of explanation, etc which is a part of what makes a good coach.

I don't think you have to be better than the coach to evaluate if he's good or not, but I think it can be hard for the struggling micro/small stakes guys. If you have some solid fundamentals you are in a way better position to evaluate the advice that you get.

I am not trying to be a douche, but does that mean we should be asking for your graph if not the specific coach's, since you could be way off with poker and could be evaluating what coaches say from a wrong fundamental percpective?
If the person who chooses is bad, we can't rely on the fact that he was chosen, to evaluate.

Check out PTR my graphs are on there. I don't think I'm way off with poker though

Otis, would you think Isildur is qualified to coach, being as he's got a negative graph on PTR? (Assuming he's not got any other strikes against him.)

Check out PTR my graphs are on there. I don't think I'm way off with poker though

You mean the -555k PTR graph?
You are definately one of the players who makes poker soooooo much more interesting to me with the wide arsenal you have, but I am no where near to evaluate if you are good or not as I am a 25NL player LOL.

I don't think you have to be better than the coach to evaluate if he's good or not, but I think it can be hard for the struggling micro/small stakes guys. If you have some solid fundamentals you are in a way better position to evaluate the advice that you get.

I agree. I don't think someone without decent fundamentals should be looking for a coach to fix that. There are cheaper ways to develop those fundamentals.

You don't need to have more knowledge than someone else necessarily to tell if they are full of it. Watch any sport and you'll find a commentator who has more knowledge and access than you, and you can still tell when he spouts crap.