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.