GG has so much more traffic than stars and esp party it makes sense to play there were the audience is.

A small bag of Doritos in the US went from $1 to something like $2.50 over the last 4 years. A box of spaghetti went from 79 cents to like $3. Almost Everything is inflated 2-3x across the board

It doesn't make any sense for anyone to keep their rates wherever they used to be before because everything costs so much, and blaming people for charging what they think their time is worth is ridiculous.

This logic doesn't many any sense.

You are saying that because inflation has gone up that by definition poker coaching hourly should go up, but at the same time, players hourly winrates are going down. The relationship to someone's coaching hourly should be loosely correlated to their playing hourly. There shouldn't be an asymmetrical relationship between a coach and a player because of inflation.

If a player's hourly goes down because of inflation, then of course the coaching hourlies should go down because of inflation.

The whole coaching scene is completely obscene. You have guys charging $300/hr for theory lessons and $500/hr when they don't even play the game.

I don't coach anymore, and I have recent graphs winning at 200+ on GG/ACR pre rakeback.

If I did coach, I would be a worse coach than Pete, even if my results are better.

I haven't watched enough(or barely any) of his content to form a strong opinion either way with regards to the value/quality, but I'll just say that there's nothing wrong w/ charging whatever he wants.

Especially for something that's non-essential like poker coaching in a competitive landscape the market will sort it out. It's like people complaining about players who charge too high MU for tourneys.

If you think the price is too high the solution is very simple.
Obviously there are people willing to pay and that's their problem.

Now on the other hand if he had a monopoly on electricity, fuel or water and was price gouging I would have a very different opinion.

I think we all owe Pete a little something.

Grinders manual opened up my eyes and I should be forever thankful as long as I’m playing.

Also who else has a similar library on YouTube like Pete’s? (Free)

Seems lots of us disagree heavily on how good Pete is. How can we get a definitive answer: seeing his results.

But he refuses to show that or says he has barely played any volume in the past 5 years (yet somehow is certain he can crush R&C harder than any other regs there).

And this new challenge will take 3 years to get an answer the way he's doing it, by which time he might've quit or GG shut down or who knows what else could happen

So you can't really blame people for assuming the worst

For sure there is more traffic in GG, but if those games are almost unbeatable I don`t understand why he wants to fail there when there is perfectly beatable, constantly running nl100 pools in other sites. I thought the whole point of this challenge was to prove pokerworld and his customers that he can actually grind and make money. So why not choose the place you can actually do that and same time show your current youtube audience that somewhere in the internet there is actually games running where small stakes guy can grind and make money without paying 15k per month just to see Daniel Negreanu shaking his ass when he wins a pot. That is a no brainer choose imo.

He was with stars for some time so this is just a guess but maybe he doesn't want to promote them? Party traffic is so tiny (25 players atm) doesn't make any sense to sit there and play 3-4 handed reg games. Acr not a valid option because not regulated tough games etc. Winamax is bit fenced. So that basically leaves gg. Or maybe he just wants to beat gg for 9bb/100 and show us how good he actually is. Last option is the one that he is talking about post bonuses even when he is saying just 9bbs / 100.

Their hourly should be whatever supply and demand says it should be. If the rate is too expensive then no one will pay. If it's too cheap then everyone will pay and you'll have a full schedule. Why should he charge less if people will pay more? He should charge as much as he can to fill the schedule that he wants to work.

It's a disingenuous business model. He isn't coaching you to beat the games. he is coaching you to think he beats the games. There is a fundamental difference between these two approaches.

Go read Skin in the game by Nassim Taleb. That whole book completely debunks your point of view.

I'll just quote the book. This is him in a nutshell.

it's funny you mention this because when i look back at most of my biggest blunders in life from poker to love to anything, had i been observing them as a 3rd party who acted as an advisor, in nearly every situation the mistake would have been obvious enough that i'd have advocated against it

It isn't and opinion or a point of view. Supply and demand, and maximizing ROI, are fundamental parts of any business.

You should be able to relate to that personally because you made a post in your blog thread about the exact concept that you're trying to argue against.

It's a good point most people don't realize until after.

Here is the basic problem with coaches that don't show graphs. You have to go off word of mouth, right? How else could you possibly figure out if a coach is worth the money or not.

The problem with word of mouth?

It's demographic targeted.

Go look in the coaching forum right now, 90% (maybe higher?) of reviews of the coaches have positive reviews. How is this possible? Is every coach Linus Love reincarnated?

It's because you are asking someone worse at poker to review someone better at poker, obviously the worse player is going to give the better player a good review the vast majority of the time.

This is why poker reviews don't work. Like AT ALL.

The only true metric is a graph of results and hopefully a recent graph. And even that has variance involved.

Your problem is your thinking that just because you use the term "Business" it can't be disingenuous or immoral. This is an ethics question not a business question.

Of course from a business point of view everything he is doing is completely fine. That's not what we are talking about.

I also own a business, he's right. Free market decides the value not some arbitrary value that you think is correct or not. This is where almost all small businesses under achieve or fail. Either basing price as a comparative to competitors, or by undervaluing the price of their time.

I'm not saying Pete is a scammer or not. I trust what Benabadbeat says although my argument is like schrodingers Cat, who knows if he beats it unless he actually plays. But saying X player charges too much for his time is dumb. If people are suspected of charging "too much" then **** like this thread happen and the market either corrects itself or pete defies a lot of people itt and continues. You can argue his business model is disingenuous all you like but the reality is there is just a lag for market correction.

You've later gone in to ethics, again you're turning this in to a philosophical argument from your own subjective standpoint on a topic that has so much grey area. If he values his time at $xxx then that's absolutely his prerogative nothing immoral or unethical about that. What should poker players be able to charge? what is the maximum Pete can be allowed to charge in your view?

*edit I have no doubt that pete is doing this challenge because of market corrections (Ie coaching drying up as more people question his ability to beat the games) it's fairly efficient.

What's wrong with this if the student actually learned something and ends up improving?

haha i don't think it's true as a blanket statement no. but in the case of pete i believe it applies. there doesn't seem to be a valid reason why people think he's a phony/taking advantage of players, so i can only see the hate as misguided.

His argument is demonstrably debunked in competitive sport eg golf/football. Look at the top sports coaches, almost none of them were as good players as the people they are coaching.

just look up Rennes football club at the moment for an extreme outlier.

Fwiw i'm not trying to defend pete either. I think not being open about results is shitty and I wouldn't recommend anyone use someone who is so opaque in this area, but I dislike bad faith arguments/logic worse.

I just went to the coaching section of the website and i dont see anything like what youre talking about. The videos that i've watched don't give me any thought that he's misrepresenting himself.

It's so weird that people get upset over something that has zero effect on their life and act like they care about people who may or may not be paying, "Too much."

I also own my own business, and if people don't like what I charge for specific things, or don't like my policies, then they are free to shop elsewhere. This coaching industry is no different.

I actually agree with some of the discourse. In a highly theoretical game like poker he really should have some results too.

There is some implicit misconception in some people that you take course A, or read course B, and that should make you beat stake C, because the author play stake D and beat it with winrate X

This is completely false, and is a very bad way of thinking. It's false for the same reason why, during uni, you may have this wonderful teacher with very good credentials, and some students will succeed and others will fail. You may also have this bad teacher teaching another class, and still some students will succeed and others will fail.

Regardless of how good or bad a coach is, students should realize that a decent % of the responsibility in succeeding or failing is theirs. Effort, intellectual capability, organisation etc etc.

i think people are forgetting the entire cause for this discussion

he said he'd absolutely crush yet offers no proof - just a "trust me bro"

But I still insist that coaches should ask for, and people should have the willingness and the courage to give completely honest feedback, even if it is very negative, with the only condition that it's well reasoned and genuine. The poker course world would be better this way IMVHO.