Quote:
Originally Posted by wereallgonnamakeit
You seem to think for some reason that graphs and results make a good coach, which is fundamentally wrong for many reasons.
1. Variance is a massive factor, even over 500k + hand samples. A 6bb "crusher" could be a 2bb reg if he flipped on the other side of the run good line
2. Just because you understand a concept, doesn't mean you can explain it. I was taught by one of the top physics professors in the world and his class was a shitshow, while a probability class taught by an adjunct trader was one of the best I've ever taken.
3. Short-term results might not even be the goal of the student, and focusing on improving them instead of the overall game can be dangerous.
4. This is probably the most important one. There are a ****ton of grifter coaches in the poker community, and many of them maintain their business by not showing their mediocre results. If we prioritized results, the grifting would be even worse. It's just so easy to fake them. You can see this in the daytrading community, where almost every big coach who's essentially scamming people. At the very least in poker we get a form of honesty.
Yeah I think we just aren't going to agree here, which is fine. It's an interesting discussion.
1. People always talk about variance in a negative light, that same 6bb winner could also be a 10bb winner.
2. That doesn't disprove what I am saying, the top physics professor talking to undergraduate students would be akin to Stefan trying to explain advanced poker concepts to a 2nl player. You need fundamental knowledge first before anything which is probably what the adjunct professor was more familiar with.
Also, the best theoretical physicist of all time disagrees with your take.
3. You don't have to distinguish between short term results and improving, the more you study and improve, on average, the better your results will be.
4. Agreed there are a ton of grifters.
I'm of the opinion that on average the better player the better the coach, give me Linus/Stefan over any high stakes coach in the business and I don't think it's that close.
I wanted to this put this quote here because Weinstein is talking about physics but you can make parallels to poker. This is basically my take on the Peter Clarke situation.
Erin Weinstein talking to Joe Rogan.
"Now, the point is, let's imagine that we had Neil Degrasse Tyson on. He's not having any of this ****. He's locked in. Because he's not really a physicist at a practicing level, he has to worry about his respectability. He is 100% one of the most brilliant people at scientific exposition I've ever seen in my life. But he can't think. He's not ready to do great science, because great science has an element of irresponsibility. And what we don't understand, is that when we decide that everybody has to do good science, you doom yourself. Many of the greatest scientists of all time were borderline quacks."
Last edited by DooDooPoker; 02-28-2024 at 10:33 AM.