I agree he's not terrible, he's an average 100nl reg. If you're a microstakes player watching his videos will make you improve.

But his understanding of poker is limited: he would get ripped apart at 500nl on stars for instance. And I keep seeing carrot poker youtube thumbnails with "HIGH STAKES PRO" which is ridiculous and insulting to real HS players who've done the work to get to their level for Peter to act like he's one of them

Because he has content involving someone who plays 500NL+.

how can you possibly say he's scamming people and/or is his content overpriced? you know how many coaches are charging $500 an hour to do hand reviews/put in no prep. Also the sheer number of hours he must have put in to create these comprehensive courses? And not to mention the constant and FREE content he puts out on youtube.

I often refer people over to his content because it's simply some of the best out there imo. And even though i play higher than him, i VERY regularly learn a bunch of concepts from his stuff.

But i guess having haters usually means you're doing something right soooo

I'm not sure man, I feel like the average 100nl reg is way worse than that

Charlie carrel and probably others criticized him for saying on his website something like “ I’m a poker TEACHER and I’m confident in that skill, but I don’t have time to put in volume.”
In peters telling, the reason he did this is because prior to that, he had some results on his website for transparency but they weren’t large samples and people criticized him for that. So eventually he got annoyed with people constantly asking him why his volume was low and saying he shouldn’t be posting any sample at all unless he had a larger sample so he just removed results entirely.

Yeah, the high stakes pro is his guest in the videos. It’s still a bit of a crock because it’s an American player on a ring fenced site, where typically mid stakes is the highest stake that regularly runs on those sites. If you play 10-50k hands a year of nl1k/2k, but the vast majority of your volume is lower, it doesn’t make you a high stakes pro. Imo at least. I guess it’s debatable. But whatever, that’s just Peter playing the YouTube algorithm like anyone else. It’s not technically untrue.

What should the title be, something like, "High stakes pro, but he plays in a fenced pool, so technically high stakes pro even though he plays in a weak pool where everyone knows that high stakes is like playing low stakes?"

Ragging on him for using an accurate title doesn't make any sense at all to me.

it's funny he's getting so much hate considering he's now actually trying to go out and prove that he can beat low stakes and aiming to put real volume in. He's also not an "average 100nl" player, I was a 100nl "average" reg stuck there for 100s of thousands of hands and would say he was much better than me at the time. Either way, the cost of coaching is highly subjective imo, and I personally found his course valuable.

I also disagree with the idea that the graphs or results make a coach. Poker is such a complicated game I don't think this can be a true. An example is quant trading. A trader probably couldn't even tell you what makes him a good trader, just a mix of intuition, quantitative skills, and hard work. Just because a poker player is good doesn't mean he can explain what made him good or even what he does that works better than theory.

Following the trading analogy, you could improve as a trader by learning options theory from a maths professor who's never traded in his life. Similarly, there are coaches who probably don't constitute the full package of a high stakes player, namely the theory, exploits, mindset, and millions more things that make them good, but they do have an understanding of parts of the game that is invaluable.

Ultimately I think results are helpful if you are looking for a high stakes player to mentor you in all parts of the game, not just strategy, but ideally the coaching speaks for itself, and I think Pete's does based on my experience with FTGU and other people's experiences.

I do think he's gonna quit the challenge because the players on GG RNC are idiots/nits and the entire pool should be banished off the face of the earth. Playing reg tables is apparently not a high stakes skill in pete's repertoire

Idk dawg. It shouldn’t matter what stakes you’re at if you’re a good coach. He could have just said American pro. But he said high stakes pro because the algorithm likes that. Which is totally fine.

To be clear, I don't hate his stuff that I've seen on YT. I was just pointing out what I've seen others say about him and his material (mainly pricing).

It would be interesting to see if anyone's taken any of his more expensive courses and similar priced courses from Uri or Upswing (guys that play much higher than Pete).

How do they compare?

kind of funny that nearly every positive comment about him comes from other people selling coaching services

I do not sell coaching services

there have been about 8 comments defending him. there's one(?) coach out of those?

sorry i thought you two were both coaches and then with seeing wereall i thought it was funny, guess i was wrong

I've had students that have also purchased 1 on 1 lessons with him and they were happy with his services.

I think it's pretty clear that Pete's private coaching services are overpriced, or at least not close to a high-value proposition on the coaching market. I also think it's next to impossible he can have the massive winrate pre rb he thinks he'll have at 100rnc.

That said, he clearly has a strong understanding of both theoretical and exploitative play, he's good at explaining the concepts in an easily understandable way, and he's released boatloads of high-value free content. The guy is definitely not a scammer by any stretch and he can easily beat lowstakes and teach others to become winners in lowstakes games.

Putting a ton of effort into building a brand (including piles of free content) and then utilizing that brand to sell your services at a premium is not unethical or scammy, it's standard business practice. He also never bills himself as being a highstakes killer or endboss and doesn't try to deceive people about his level or expertise at all, frequently saying that he prioritizes coaching and building that skillset over putting in volume.

It seems hard to criticize that approach just because it's non-standard. I do think he's overpriced, but coaching is an open market and he's not doing anything unethical. I hope he gives this challenge a fair shake because it'll be interesting to see how he does.

Average reg on GG mid stakes is losing -3.5bb/100 pre rb

from the perspective of a recreational zoom 0.10 player I value his free content and I can see things I can immediately apply to my game and it is relatively well structured, which is one of the main issues I have always seen with poker content: poorly structured and hard to be applied appropriately in practice . I have seen paid material from high stakes players that in my opinion was of considerably less quality, of course I understand I'm not the target audience and it is hard to judge. Ultimately you don't have to be the best player to be a great teacher. I think he might be getting outshined though as Saulo costa YT material is even better in my opinion and coming from a more "reputable" player

I don't like however the way he is handling this challenge either, sounds like it will take him years to accomplish that sample and the winrate he's set as a benchmark sounds ridiculous to me, perhaps I don't have the same grasp of edges in poker but I would say it is much more narrower when I see the worst recs in my microstakes pool losing at "just" average -35bbs/100, I don't know how you can possibly achieve a +15bb/100 edge pre-rake over regs at zoom100 that are likely professionals. If it is possible I think it must take an absolute juggernaut with plenty of population data to achieve.

I think it's possible to beat 100NL on GG by 2bb/100 pre-rb if your objective is quality over quantity.

Every human being that tries to be top 1 LB everyday will inevitably have a lower winrate. By forcing yourself to play you start to make mistakes.

If every LB grinder played smaller sessions i believe their winrate would be higher. I guess that's what he is trying to do.

I think he can beat 100NL. The point is: can he beat 1k NL and up? How about 5k NL? If his thought proccess is so good like he says it is, I think he should demonstrate it by playing against richer people.

420 is correct. Poker is a game and we keep score with chips. Most games have to be played with skill to beat opponents, poker is pretty much the only game that can be played GTO perfect and still lose to a clueless donk.

The lower the limit the harder it is to beat the rake. Move up to higher limits or move on and stop boring us with the nitastic blather over microstakes.

Do you actually believe that? People criticising you doesn't inherently mean you are "doing something right" and the idea that it does is total nonsense

I think this is a wonderful summary.

This. If he ends up finishing the challenge my guess is that he will land somewhere between 1-4bb/100 hoods. He seems to be smart guy so I think it is mind boggling how delusional he can be about achieveable winrates in that pool. He must really believe himself because otherwise he would not start this kind of challenge which he will surely fail in some terms. Also dont like him promoting that GG raketrap shithole when he could do this same challenge in Stars or Party and same time have a realistic chance to success.

It's not just Pete. All coaching and services are going up in price. Ridiculously. There are courses for $1000+ on RIO, RIO's Elite is now $200(!) a month. GTOWizard is $150/mo. There isn't much overhead for these businesses and individuals so I'm not understanding what the drastic increase in everything is due to.

That's for AI nodelocked GTO Wizard with all parameters/deep stack etc. For the standard version it's like $70 and that is good enough for 99% of the population.

Agreed that everything is crazy overpriced. It's like the old saying goes, the guys who were selling the shovels were the ones that got rich during the gold rush.