Coaching Poker Forums

I definitely would, as long as he could convey his info in a form accessible by me. And I would be 'hooked' by his honesty.

I think Otis' and Mike's (first poster) points got twisted a little by the fact Tuba was named. They seemed to be making the point that poker is a very very hard game to judge quality by. Bias' that come into play by coach/student dynamics tend to diminish the 'arms-length' objectivity needed to truly evaluate effectiveness of coaching. So winrates would be the most objective measurement.

Once and only once basic competence can be established should the student go into interpersonal coaching issues.

I would disagree with a minor point about needing to be beating 'today's games' to learn the basics, but tend to side with them with the 'games change and what worked then may not work now' argument.

I realize I am paraphrasing and taking out of context, so let my disclaimer be: this was my take on the discussion.

which

take mrsweet28

take mrsweet28

that would be nice

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 evoof lution, etc., and is a terrific teacher. There's just one thing: this player is a major-league tilter.

I actually mentioned the possibility of someone like this in this thread already. I'm sure somewhere out there this guy exists. The problem comes in distinguishing if the guy is bullshitting you or not though, as any breakeven player can claim to be this guy and we have no way of knowing.

Luckily we do not have to trouble ourselves with this problem because there are a lot of coaches out there who DO win at poker so we can just systematically exclude all those that don't and not worry about excuses or trying to draw distinctions.

A guy has to be super-vigilant when dealing with this because, as has been said over and over again here, coaching attracts a lot of people that can't win. You look at tuba's graph here, the guy has studied for years, worked really hard, played tons of hands he still can't win hardly any money at all (I think the graph ended with 200,000 breakeven hands?) There's no way this guy has an hourly near $90 / hr for poker which is why coaching sounds good to him (among other reasons, helping people is fun, better fit for his personality whatever else.)

If a guy has given it all he's got at poker and still can't make money there's just no reason to hire him as a coach no matter how little he charges.

why i am not coach from real madrid and mourinho is? i do it for 50000 $ in a year and he for 5.000.000 $

then mister otis_nixon pay for a good coach(400 $ +) with big reference, no go to cry who not is be able to coach you for 80/90/100$

I think Otis' and Mike's (first poster) points got twisted a little by the fact Tuba was named. They seemed to be making the point that poker is a very very hard game to judge quality by. Bias' that come into play by coach/student dynamics tend to diminish the 'arms-length' objectivity needed to truly evaluate effectiveness of coaching. So winrates would be the most objective measurement.

Yes! Exactly. Winrate is a starting point, just the first filter to be applied.

I would disagree with a minor point about needing to be beating 'today's games' to learn the basics, but tend to side with them with the 'games change and what worked then may not work now' argument.

I would say that if you killed yesterday's games and are already rich, busy with other stuff or just sick of poker you're still qualified. The past winning at least shows you know how to think about poker.

IMO the softness of the games in the past is overrated anyways. Believe me when I tell you there were still many breakeven/losing regs and holdem theory has evolved a ton. So if you could win big then, your brain works well enough that you can teach now (assuming you've kept up with things.)

This kinda brings me to another point for a different day about learning rote from videos vs using vids to help you learn to think for yourself and give yourself kind of a jumping-off point. Open any stars $5 NL table and run any regs through PTR. Any of them have a bazillion hands of nanolimit poker. Yet they will not give up and keep doing what they are doing even though after all this effort they aren't any better and any outside observer would say dude you are wasting your time. What are they doing wrong? Why can't they break through to the next level? They "work hard" right? If you think about it the answer is obvious but it's not obvious to them because they still have a lot of misplaced hope because that's how the human mind works. I think sometimes the structure of training sites inadvertently encourages these guys to do stuff like this figuring someday a switch will flip in their brain and they'll get rich.

Enough digression though, back to poker.

why i am not coach from real madrid and mourinho is? i do it for 50000 $ in a year and he for 5.000.000 $

then mister otis_nixon pay for a good coach(400 $ +) with big reference, no go to cry who not is be able to coach you for 80/90/100$

piscogay is that you?

. . . .This kinda brings me to another point for a different day about learning rote from videos vs using vids to help you learn to think for yourself and give yourself kind of a jumping-off point. Open any stars $5 NL table and run any regs through PTR. Any of them have a bazillion hands of nanolimit poker. Yet they will not give up and keep doing what they are doing even though after all this effort they aren't any better and any outside observer would say dude you are wasting your time. What are they doing wrong? Why can't they break through to the next level? They "work hard" right? If you think about it the answer is obvious but it's not obvious to them because they still have a lot of misplaced hope because that's how the human mind works. I think sometimes the structure of training sites inadvertently encourages these guys to do stuff like this figuring someday a switch will flip in their brain and they'll get rich. . . .

+1
This is good stuff. We need a separate thread -- or video -- on this theme.
"The Haj School (WiltOnTilt)" probably comes the closest.

piscogay is that you?

.........

This kinda brings me to another point for a different day about learning rote from videos vs using vids to help you learn to think for yourself and give yourself kind of a jumping-off point.

Glad you agree with me on this.

I think sometimes the structure of training sites inadvertently encourages these guys to do stuff like this figuring someday a switch will flip in their brain and they'll get rich.

You can only lead a horse to water, you can't make it drink. If someone thinks they can watch a video and be good, the issue isn't with the video. If someone just isn't good at the game but keeps trying, their perseverance is either to be admired or pitied, but it isn't the video site that makes them bad. Worse, everybody's different so the site can't just come in and fix everything for everyone. There's just no way around it - no one can do it for you.

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.

This is the classic counter-example to this argument, and I've read it a few times on 2p2. I tend to agree with Otis that there's no way to know whether this player is full of shit. With so many other coaches to choose from, I would answer your question with a "no." It's simply not worth the risk to me to pick this guy who MIGHT be able to help me and MIGHT be a winning player if he could address his tilt issues.

The other difficulty I have with this example is that it just seems highly unlikely to me. There are great mental game coaches out there like Tommy Angelo and Jared Tendler. There are books written on mental game, and there's a great series here in EPTPE. Everyone has tilted, and many players have worked on their tilt issues and have gotten to the point that they can play better when tilted, recognize when they're tilting, tilt less often and quit when they're tilted. I find it hard to believe that there is someone who, despite pouring thousands of hours into the technical aspects of poker, either hasn't tried to address his tilt issues or is unable to do so. Of course it's possible that someone's brain is wired this way. I just tend to subscribe to Occam's Razor and would be more inclined to believe that the guy just has fundamental problems with his game and blames it on tilt issues.

EDIT: So, I guess if we're going to be precise, I can no longer claim that being a winning player is an absolutely necessary condition, because your counter-example is theoretically possible. In practice, however, I stand by the spirit of my argument.

WOW. Just ran into this post and rapidly looked through it so I may have missed some points. We have a great advantage on picking coaches that there is TONS of info available. Bio's are only a small portion, current win rate IMO is almost meaningless. You can read references, check out video's, and read their posts (search for them on 2+2 also). If you don't like their style of videos and posts DON'T HIRE THEM. If you do, send them an email - ask them about themselves, their current play, and most importantly what their teaching style is and what kind of plan do they have for their students. Another advantage is, if you don't like them after your first session-FIRE THEM!!
I mean - do you pick your doctor out of a book without ever doing research on them? (Unfortunately - almost 80% of insured do pick their doctors this way)

. . . .if you don't like them after your first session-FIRE THEM!!. . . .

This statement actually touches on the point of conversation -- but is completely unrealistic.

No person who is getting training/coaching for the first time -- is even going to know -- let alone have the guts to "FIRE THEM". Never ever seen it happen (in any sport) -- unless it was a kid's father managing the situation -- and even then, it normally isn't a comfortable situation for those involved.

Frankly, I can think of many times that I was duped for $$$ as a beginner in some sports (training/equipment). Later on (as I become more experienced), I always make sure newbies in a sport don't get the same treatment (Karma with a sprinkle of Revenge). But normally they already have their instructor, so I can only help them with equipment and any future training plans.

Interesting topic.

Another DC coach with larger sample; http://www.pokertableratings.com/fulltilt-player-search/ambtndplyr

His hourly coaching rate is $85 but he seems to be a loosing player on nl200 over 75k. I know that's not enough of sample but anyway, I think it's good to point out, especially with all the coaching scams that have been recently.

And Phoinix who's breakeven over 300k hands on FTP (won't out his sn since I don't know if he wants to).

And other DC coaches who don't want to provide graphs for some strange reasons.

Ok I just stumbled accross this thread and came to this post. (I haven't even read further) Seriously no offense, but this ptr link is shocking to me. And im sorry but the sample size defense is not valid. I'm referring to the 200nl and 50nl.

As far as tubasteve, I can vouch for the guy as he was my coach when i was at 50nl and a damn good one at that. He has also showed me his graph of iirc 100nl and he crushed it. although this wasnt recent I'm confident in his coaching abilities.

Just my honest input.

He has also showed me his graph of iirc 100nl and he crushed it.

No reason to try to recall correctly - Steve posted stats/graph for the past 275k hands a few pages back. Big props to him for transparency.