Poker coaching within the community is a highly polarizing issue. There have been long threads on TwoPlusTwo which have called coaching "a scam" and "predatory" and perhaps "a waste of money". Right around two years ago, BoyWonder wrote the following in his blog on coaching:

"You see, the tragedy of the poker training industry is that because a lot of you guys are at a percieved information disadvantage and think that some people are sitting on something special, a coach can feed you any type of garbage and you won't know wether it's gold or golddust. And trust me, a lot of guys from what I have seen in the past couple of weeks, are just putting out the first thing that comes to their minds - sounds good at first glance but garbage. Poker always sounds good on paper, and it always sounds good when you break out pokerstove and "assign" haphazard ranges and talk equity and lines and balance and talk about how "everybody today is not cr-ing enough turns". In the context of you being a huge winner in the games today, you talking like this makes sense, because what you are saying translates to skill. If you have found yourself "running really bad over the last year", you should come back with these statements after they have made you some money, or if not you shouldn't charge for them."

In this and the next few blogs, I want to break down some of the issues with poker coaching that I've thought about over the last few years. I also want to know what you think.

First Things First: My Own Biases

Just so that you know where I'm coming from - I have coached in the past and currently am working with a few students (so from that you can already figure out that I believe there are situations in which individual coaching can be valuable). I have obviously made numerous educational (hopefully) videos and am about to publish a book about poker. This book arose out of my own frustration with currently available information for recreational (which is 95% of you) players.

I consider myself an educator first and a poker player second. I've always found satisfaction in helping people get better at things which I was good at (math, poker, running, etc). Thus, I've been very motivated in trying to understand why some people find success at the tables and others don't.

In fact, I made a post over four years ago addressing that very question (sounds kind of condescending as I'm re-reading it now):

http://www.cardrunners.com/cr_forums/showthread.php?32432-Why-can-t-most-people-beat-200NL-and-below

The topic of why some people succeed and why some fail has fascinated me. In my very naive mind, anyone with average intelligence could find success. Since then, I've realized that it's much, much harder to be a long-term winner than I previously thought.

Basic Issues

I want to discuss the following issues:

1. Do coaches need to be winning players? If so, how does one demonstrate it?
2. How much should a coach charge?
3. What are some ethical issues associated with coaching?
4. Is coaching "variance free, easy money"?
5. Should the coaching industry be regulated? If so, how?

Issue One: Do Coaches Need to Be Winning Players?

"Those that can, do. That's that can't, teach. Those that can't teach, teach gym" -- Jack Black's "Dewey Finn" in School of Rock.

I have a Masters in Math Education. My wife Katy is finishing her PhD in Math Education. Many of our friends have doctorates in that field. Katy also has a Masters degree in pure math and I know a lot of PhD's in pure math.

I can tell you that there are tons of great mathematicians who are very bad teachers. One of the main reasons for this is that they operate on such a high level that it's hard for them to relate with the problems that an average person might have with math.

People that have studied math education are much more sensitive to issues that students might have on different math topics. Still - this doesn't mean that they will be good teachers. Being a good teacher is very difficult. Just because someone is good at poker doesn't mean they are going to be a good teacher or coach.

Quick - name ten players who are great poker players and excellent poker educators. You could probably rattle of the first few quickly, but then it gets harder, doesn't it?

One of the first things people want to see is a graph and I do admit that graphs make for wonderful visuals. In general, I think PTR has been a good thing for the poker education industry. Before I continue, I will post my graph from January 2010 - April 15th, 2011:



I am up close to 500 BI's in around a million hands. So what does that tell you?

It tells you that I'm doing something right in order to win money. It doesn't tell you much more than that. Most people post graphs in a way that's flattering. For example - I did something which presents me in the best possible light. Can you figure it out? Am I deceptive for doing it?

Most people would agree that a 100K sample graph from 2006 would have little validity in today's games. But - how recent and how good do results need to be? How long are my own results going to be valid? I am currently playing some on Merge but don't have anything close to a good sample of results there.

I firmly believe in honesty and transparency. PTR is not perfect (everyone complains if PTR errs against them, few do if it errs in their favor - kinda like people posting their EV graphs if they are running under but staying mum if they are running over) but it's an important tool for accountability.

Posting screen names is one piece of the puzzle. If I check someone's PTR and they have limited volume there or bad results, that should be a red flag. I would definitely want to know more about why they are losing or why they don't play much. There might be good reasons for it, but I would need to have that discussion with them.

From my experience, there are many soft skills associated with winning (ex: tilt control, playing rested, playing the proper amount of tables, playing good games) which have nothing to do with theory. Theory exists in a vacuum. For example - I have no idea what kind of results Matthew Janda has had, but I know that I've enjoyed and learned from watching some of his theory videos. Tom "LearnedfromTV" Chambers is another example of a teacher who is held in high esteem from high-stakes PLO regulars with regards to his theory.

If someone is looking for a deeper understanding of theory, these two people have stood the test of peer critique with regards to their work. This brings me to a key point: "Poker coaching" is too broad of a term to be useful. For example, Tommy Angelo worked with Phil Galfond on Phil's mental game. Tom Chambers worked with Skjervoy on his game. Both students have had much better results than their coaches, and have spoken about the value of the coaching they've received.

Basically - a coach should be an expert in the area that they are coaching. For example - RonFar3 would be a great resource for someone who is thinking of becoming a SuperNova Elite playing SSNL Full Ring games on PokerStars. I would probably not be - I don't know all the kinks associated with doing it.

So - bottom line for me is that a coach can provide value (a key concept which I want to discuss next) for a student even if they are not a winning player. A winning player might not necessarily provide much if value to a student.

It is important that the student knows what they want ("I want to move up in stakes and win monies" is the equivalent of level 1 hand reading when it comes to goals) and that a poker coach is honest about what they can help with. I plan on discussing some ideas for how to achieve this honesty and transparency in later blogs though.

In case you missed it (I did), here is a long post by Phil Galfond on the state of current games (specifically at the high stakes):

http://www.philgalfond.com/lets-make-some-changes/

Very few people are in his position to make this assessment, so it makes for interesting reading. Thoughts?

First of all - thank you to everyone that has pre-ordered the book and/or given feedback to us. We've fixed various typos as well as the cover. Here is the new cover:

http://mtmicropoker.com/book.aspx

Any feedback we get is invaluable - my goal is to create the #1 resource for micro/small stakes online players and I cannot do it without your help, advice, and support. So again - thank you for everything so far - it translates to a better product which is my ultimate goal.

Secondly, there are about 36 hours left in the Coaching/Pre-Order promotion for those of you that want to add some EV to your purchase.

Finally, I want to address three questions I've gotten:

1. Why Is This Book Called "Full Ring Edition"?

I loved the Full Ring Rush Poker games and was able to four-table them with relative ease. Thus, I based my 2011 Challenge around them. I also felt, and still do, that Full Ring is a better starting place for someone looking to methodically build their bankroll.

Lots - I would say that 98% of the advice in this book is relevant to 6-max players. In the end, poker is poker - a game of making reads and making plays based on those reads. Bankroll management is the same. Focusing on your A-game is the same as is reviewing your sessions. Knowing when to continue betting and when to give up is universal.

2. So what are the main differences between Full Ring and 6-max?

C) This also means that postflop stats are different. A c-bet percentage of around 55-60% is standard for Full Ring regulars whereas it's closer to 70% for 6-max ones. Other stats are slightly different as well.

3. What Value Does This Book offer a Heads-Up Player?

I would not recommend this book to someone who wanted to learn Heads Up play. Facing a single opponent when both of you are always in the blinds just makes for a completely different dynamic. A key component of Heads Up play is gameflow and changing gears and Building a Bankroll doesn't focus too much on either (since that discussion might prove to be counter-productive at the micro/small stakes FR tables).

Randy "nanonoko" Lew recently set a Guiness Book World Record by playing 23,493 hands of online poker in eight hours profitably (He won $7.65 by the end). Stars increased his table limit to 40 for the duration of the challenge so that he could get the necessary number of hands in.

Quick note:

I'm running a promotion for those of you that pre-order the "Building a Bankroll" book before Sunday, January 15th. Anyone that places an order by then will be entered in a drawing to win one of five individual coaching sessions. I'm open to doing anything you want during the session and I'm happy to tailor the session to your needs.

The books are expected to ship in about two to three weeks.

Also, here is the book cover - let me know what you think!

Lee and I have been working very hard on my upcoming book and I'm happy to share a preview with you guys:

http://mtmicropoker.com/book.aspx

The whole experience of writing has been really interesting. First of all, there is a lot of thinking about why things are the way they are, writing it down, thinking some more, and scrapping what you had for something else. It's a very non-linear process. Sort of reminded me of the "What success looks like" cartoon which I so expertly modified:


I really would love to get some feedback on the product from you guys. My main motivation for doing it is to create book which has all the tools a beginning player needs to start on the path of success at poker. I feel like I'm in a unique position to reflect on what those skills are and have tried to articluate that. That said, the feedback I get from readers is critical on every level - content, website, etc.

I want to know what you like, what you dislike, and what you wish the perfect beginner's guide would have. This one is based on my 2011 experience (pre Black Friday of course) so all the examples are Full Ring, but the concepts apply very well to 6-max as well.

I'm excited to be so close to having the books ready for publication and shipment. Our tentative date for doing it is late January!

Well - the results are in and around 70% of the people (n = 120 as of me writing this) voted for the Turn as the most difficult street to play in NLHE.

As I was writing about postflop play, that was my intuitive guess and it's nice to have it confirmed. So I guess the question is ... why? Aren't river decisions the most expensive and thus the most critical?

I think the crux of it is lack of planning and thinking preflop and on the flop. Before I elaborate on that, let's breifly talk about each of the streets.

Preflop: Many players have static and speculative ranges when playing preflop. The most difficult situation people face when playing preflop is how to react to being three-bet. Other than that, most decisions tend to be automatic and inexpensive. It's also rare to make bet-sizing mistakes preflop (unless you are three-betting yourself).

Flop: Like preflop, many players tend to auto-pilot flop play. If they raised preflop, they often c-bet on the flop. If they called preflop, they will continue if they hit and give up if they missed. Bet sizing tends to also be fairly automatic. IMO, the flop is the most critical street in NLHE. Planning the rest of the hand needs to happen here.

Turn: The turn is the first time I think most players start thinking about ranges (something they should have been doing preflop and on the flop). Thus, the turn often comes to players as a shock if they were on auto-pilot for the first two streets. They don't plan their hands and now are forced to make decisions. Since they didn't spend too much time thinking about ranges preflop and on the flop, now they are forced to work overtime with the timer running. This creates a stressful environment and that tends to be memorable.

Also, the turn is the first time most players intuitively experience their preflop and flop leaks starting to compound. A lot of people think they have a pretty solid preflop game (99% don't) and are pretty good on the flop (where planning doesn't happen for many), so they attribute their discomfort with the turn specifically to the turn and not to the combination of the first three streets.

Finally, the turn is also this mixture of the pot already starting to get expensive and many unknowns still up in the air. There is still one more card to come, and many players tend to follow through on bluffs on turns.

River: The river is interesting because even though you will see it least often, the decisions you make there are often the most expensive. So why wasn't it picked as the most difficult street? For one, there are no more unknowns when it comes to the board and thus there isn't much to speculate over if you were drawing.

Player's ranges on the river tend to be fairly polarized - which is also true for many people's preflop and flop ranges. The turn, as "ienjoypoker" on 2+2 observed, tends to have the most situations in which players merge their ranges as they semi-bluff. Very few people turn their made hands into bluffs on the river or value-bet thinly at the micro and low stakes.

Finally, since most players started thinking about their opponents ranges and hand reading on the turn, they now can follow-through with that on the river. Thus, unlike the turn, the river is almost never the first street that players mentally engage on.

So that's some of my thinking on the topic ... let me know additional thoughts/points which I might have left out.

Quick ... what's the first thing you thought about when you read this blog title? Which street came to mind?

I've been putting the finishing touches on my NLHE "Building a Bankroll" book and thinking about how to help people think about how to play the late streets in a hand. It's clear from all my coaching and forum reading that people struggle on turns and rivers. But which do people find more difficult, and more importantly, which is more difficult to teach?

Here is the thread I started on 2+2 which asked that question. Please vote before reviewing the results.

I would like to write my thoughts about it, but would first like to get at least 100 votes (so 55 more). It will likely be my last blog of 2011 or the first of 2012. I haven't done a good theory post in a while and this should be a fun topic to write about.

Merry Christmas!



The New York Times had an article yesterday which discussed the removal of an obstacle to online gambling. Basically, the Wire Act which was used to limit (and essentially ban) online poker, was ruled to only apply to sporting events.

This, combined with the fact that individual states desperately need new sources of revenue and want to enlarge their base of people gambling, is very good news for the future of legal and regulated online poker in the United States.

Rich Muny (TheEngineer on 2+2), the VP of the board of the Poker Player Alliance, said this on 2+2:

"I think it's huge. For one, it means Congress will have to revisit the broader issue if they wish to have clarity. For another, it does seem to clear the way for intrastate poker IMO (again, IANAL).

Both developments bode well for us, perhaps increasing the odds of moving federal legislation by double-digit percentage points."

Here is more agreement from PokerXanadu (another 2+2 mod very involved with the legislative side of ipoker) on the huge implications of this ruling. He specifies:

"It's essentially equivalent to passing a federal opt-in i-poker bill [my highlight for emphasis - PN]. Any state that now passes legislation that authorizes i-poker can legally participate in interstate i-poker with NV and other states with similar legislation. Arguably, it can also occur without such state enabling legislation in states that don't have a law that expressly prohibits i-poker, but I don't think that will happen."

More from PX: "this makes the chances for federal legislation go to near 100%"

WSJ article: "Internet Poker Is Sort of Legal!"

"In a nutshell, the department's Office of Legal Counsel has determined that the Federal Wire Act, the 1961 law that had been interpreted to outlaw all forms of gambling across state lines, actually only applies to "a sporting event or contest."

Well, what does this mean? It means that Internet poker isn't barred by any federal statue.

This story is still developing, but outlook seems very upbeat!

I have an idea for a poker-education related project which requires programming some software. I have no experience with programming but have a clear direction for what I want the software to do.

If you, or someone you know, would be interested in collaborating on this, shoot me a PM with some basic info (name, experience with programming & poker). I'll be happy to discuss both the scope and the financial end of it.