If we can agree that a strong theoretical understanding is the best scale that we have to gauge value in the coaching industry, we can begin to devise a theoretically based written examination that attempts to rank coaches accordingly. This does not have to be the end-all-be-all of a coach's fixed hourly rate, but it can serve as a benchmark and push hourly rates closer to where they actually should be. For instance, if a coach scores mediocre on the standardized test, but is an extremely effective educator that has a very genuine personality, puts a ton of time into his course planning, received a myriad of outstanding reviews from past students, etc. -- then it's completely reasonable that his hourly rate could exceed the bracket of his test scores. The bottom line is that poor test scores should immediately raise red flags for a high-priced coach, and exceptional test scores should define the upper eschalon of coaches.

How it can work:

*Coaches will have "x" hours to complete a written examination, for simplicity let's say the test consists of 100 short answer questions. The test will increase in difficulty as it progresses. A sample question 1 & 2 could read:

1) Assume you face a range of entirely bluffcatchers. What is the percentage of value needed to balance a river betting range using the following bet sizings: A) 1 PSBB) 1/2 PSBC) 2 PSBShow your work.

Full credit will be given for an answer that resembles the following:
A) 2:1 odds laid = 33% equity needed for defender to reach indifference, Answer = 67% Value
B) 3:1 odds laid = 25% equity needed for defender to reach indifference, Answer = 75% Value
C) 3:2 odds laid = 40% equity needed for defender to reach indifference, Answer = 60% Value

2) Assume we are facing a range of entirely bluffcatchers:

A) Show the EV equation for a balanced range betting the river for 1 PSB vs an optimal opponent.
B) Prove that incentive to bluff is lost after the opponent begins to call a pot sized bet 60% of the time.
Full credit will be given for an answer that resembles the following:
A) (.67)(1) + ((.67)(0.5) + (.33)(.5) - (.33)(0.5)) = EV is 100% of the effective pot
B) (.33)(.4) - (.33)(0.6)) = EV of bluffs is now negative.

*Note how part B in question 2 is actually the exploitative version of part A. Questions will be designed to test the coach's understanding of equilibrium as well as the exploitative implications that arise from deviating from that equilibrium. In this way the test is still a legitimate representation of the coach's teachable exploitative talent.

Coaches' scores will be posted on a public domain, where students will finally have access to each coach's teachable understanding of the game. From this point, individual coahcing prices can become regulated according to test results, with greater and greater accuracy as more coaches take the test. If people who are currently on the leading edge of game theory put in the effort required to develop a standardized test like this, I think it could be a the best solution to the problem that we have in the current coaching market: we have no way of completely proving that people are full of shit.