Coaching Poker Forums

"You should have bet that turn." "Why is that?" "You're ahead of his range."

Yeah... unless the coach tells you what range he is talking about that sentence says nothing.. Good example

How should we go about evaluating potential coaches?

Is it fair to ask a potential coach to provide graphs/results/references? Should we expect potential coaches to provide these if we ask them?

That matters?

I would have thought the more important question is:
"Are you any good at teaching?"

I'd rather learn from (I play 25NL) someone that crushes 50 or 100NL, who can articulate concepts very well, understands the players that frequent the limits I play, and challenge me to answer my own questions instead of one that plays 600NL, but who's form of teaching is: "You should have bet that turn." "Why is that?" "You're ahead of his range."

Touché, and I agree

+1, though I prefer it when a coach asks me what I think his range is and why, and then tells me what about my thought process is good and what is bad. I have had a few different coaches, and the good ones all do this.

One of my ambitions is to become a DC coach. I have been working on my poker game since I joined DC and eventually would like to become a coach on the site which has helped me the most. WIth DC I have moved from 4NL$ games through to 10nl, 20nl, 30nl, 40nl, 50nl and now to 100NL € to the point where poker is my sole income. I live with guys in my house I met through DC. At what point do you start to consider a member to become a coach? Would it be somewhere around 200nl?/400nl?

it's not really about how "good" you are, it's about if you can teach all these complicated poker concepts in an easy, understandable way to your students. Of course you need to be good or at least decent at poker for the DC team to know that you are at least qualified for the basic requirement.

Touché, and I agree

Tuck me some free coaching and i'll be a judge for you

On a serious note, do coaches ever discuss students with other coaches, to maybe get some insight into how to approach an issue a student brought up or to consider how to adapt to that particular student?

How often, if ever, do Coaches who're in a current 'relationship' with a student, cut off that student for outgrowing what they can be taught by that coach, or even refering them to another Coach who has a different approach to coaching? For example, I read a post by Zuberi where he reviews DerBrain's coaching. He states that DerBrain is not a fan of doing live sweat sessions. If a student were to learn faster/more efficiently through live sweats (or any other teaching session that the instructor is not a huge fan of/isn't in his style), would the coach adapt or consider getting the student another coach?

I'm going to push you guys with questions

I usually try to accommodate the student if he prefers a specific format, and think most coaches will do that, but I'll certainly tell my students that I don't think that, for example, live sweat sessions only are the best method to learn.

Tuck me some free coaching and i'll be a judge for you

On a serious note, do coaches ever discuss students with other coaches, to maybe get some insight into how to approach an issue a student brought up or to consider how to adapt to that particular student?

Yes - that happens from time to time.

How often, if ever, do Coaches who're in a current 'relationship' with a student, cut off that student for outgrowing what they can be taught by that coach, or even refering them to another Coach who has a different approach to coaching?

There are not that many approaches to coaching. Mostly it is a matter of chemistry.

For example, I read a post by Zuberi where he reviews DerBrain's coaching. He states that DerBrain is not a fan of doing live sweat sessions. If a student were to learn faster/more efficiently through live sweats (or any other teaching session that the instructor is not a huge fan of/isn't in his style), would the coach adapt or consider getting the student another coach?

Live sweating can often lead to unethical situations and should only be used with advanced students - if at all.

Do you think the reason that people fail to get past a certain limit is because they have trouble understanding the basic principles of the game, because they know these and have trouble applying them, because some psychological barriers or something else?

Do you think the reason that people fail to get past a certain limit is because they have trouble understanding the basic principles of the game, because they know these and have trouble applying them, because some psychological barriers or something else?

All of the above

If I had to pick one I'd go for psychological barriers though.

If I had to pick one I'd go for psychological barriers though.

ditto

What are you guys referring to by that term?

Yeah, that's interesting, could you provide an example?

a few might be tilt, ego, lack of self-awareness, lack of understanding of variance, lack of discipline, underestimating the complexity of the game, and often entitlement as a result of these factors.