I think the best way to cut through the minefield that is the current state of the coaching market is to find a way to accurately assess skill in a way that is applicable to the eductation process. In short, anything taught that is of any value is highly quantifiable.

There is clearly an elite level of poker that is inexpressable -- it consists of successfully mind-fucking the opponent by correctly toggling your frequencies and bet sizings to get the desired exploitative result. I don't mean to take anything away from this type of edge, but my problem with it is that it has no place in 99% of coaching. This is a skill that can't effectively be trained into 99% of students by their coach -- it is either an innate gift (some people are naturally hyper-sensitive to others' energies), or more commonly it can be developed through a repetitive experiential approach (i.e. playing a shitload of hands). It is NOT developed by the student being told by a coach with a highly adept spidey sense that certain spots "feel" right based on the coach's interpretation of how the opponent will react due to highly subjective metagame. In almost all cases, the student will not have the hard wiring that he needs to interpret this type of ambiguous information (if he did, he'd already be winning boatloads and not paying for lessons). This leads me to two main points:

1) There is a limit to the amount of exploitative play that a coach can effectively convey to the vast majority of the student base.

2) A strong theoretical analysis naturally lends itself to an understanding of appropriate exploitative adjustments in a way that is both clearly quantifiable and still highly effective.

Trying to help a student to improve without first giving him a sturdy theoretical foundation is a recipe for disaster. It is nearly impossible to build upon concepts in lessons if there is no theoretical groundwork laid. Furthermore, if the student does not undergo the proper thought process corrections that a strong theoretical understanding will help illuminate, the student will constantly find himself with leaks and mental contradictions that he is completely unconscious of -- a coach's (and student's) worst nightmare.

Anyone who argues that understanding game theory will not make you a better exploitative player does not understand game theory. We cannot effectively discuss exploitative play with out a centerpoint to compare it to -- trying to do so is like trying to describe the location of a point in space when no other points exist relative to it. I think if we can agree on this fact -- that theory is a precursor to all exploitative play -- then we can begin to develop a rating system that seeks to test a coach's theoretical understanding. Luckily high level theory, unlike some forms of high level exploitative play, is far more quantifiable and completely testable.

In my next entry I'll outline how I think standardized testing in the coaching industry can be implemented in an effective format. The intention is to establish a more legitimately regulated coaching market, and to ensure that students can feel comfortable knowing that they're getting the caliber of information that they pay for.