Quote:
Originally Posted by Rahm93
1. I shared my yearly graph, not HU specific.
2. I want to clarify, I have not taken coaching from Cory, I have not read his book yet, all I can judge from is his video content I have seen (maybe 10 videos). I am also sure he will partly disagree with my opinion on this question.
I played NL for many years, somewhat successfully, by the end playing an average big blind above $10 and playing up to $50/100. I approached the game in a way where I would learn how strategies by memorizing them after seeing simulations. This lead to a lot of generalisations as the game tree for ring games grows very large. After moving onto PLO in 2018, I struggled with this approach and spent a lot of time developing other ways of thinking about the game and building my strategies with different combinations more from first principle instead of relying on solver outputs I have seen previously.
While I am sure Cory disagrees with me at this point, strategy graphs and similar things that I have seen in his content does in my opinion lead to more generalisations since you are very limited to the amount of flops you could do this work for, and kind of lends itself more to memorization and pattern-recognition.
This is of course a lot more effective in HU, especially short stack, where the game trees are a lot smaller and you can memorize lines / ranges with more precision. I don't think there is a coincidence this is Cory's strongest game as it suits his way of learning and teaching well.
3. I only do 1-year long CFP Deals that includes me staking the student. I have very strong (negative) opinions on hourly coaching and the CFP models employed by large stables but that is not for this thread.
After thinking a bit about it I believe from an incentive and ethical standpoint, a video course or a book (I believe these are somewhat equivalent) are superior to both CFP without backing as well as hourly coaching, so you are more likely to get a good product buying a book or a course similar to the Upswing Model, rather than entering into a CFP-deal / hourly-deal where the coach has 0 skin in the game or buying a subscription model coaching service such as RIO or Mastermind.
4. No, I've ran a blog on a Swedish forum for a long time where I share HH analysis and stuff sometimes but I have never sold any content and probably never will, because of what I outlined in 3). I will probably never write a book or create a course either because of piracy reasons. I believe one good student will make me more money over the course of a deal rather than making a course or book. I also enjoy coaching people a lot and I would hate writing a book or recording videos.
5. Maybe 100 deals with 70 different players if I had to ball-park it (some are repeats who come back after a year or so). I've run the coaching business with a very good friend of mine and my first and only poker coach who taught me NL in 2014-2015. He runs the NL-side of the stable and I run the PLO-side as of today. We have only ever lost money on 1 or 2 students iirc which I think is a pretty good track record in the backing business.
Sorry, I wasn't exactly sure which of your recent posts to quote because there were things I wanted to reference in both. I guess I'll start with the famous quote:
"All models are wrong, but some are useful"
In the book I lay out a general framework for thinking about important spots in the game tree. From my experience as a poker and chess teacher, starting out with a simplified model of reality and then burrowing into the exceptions (as I do in the hand character chapter) is a highly effective way to take someone from having little knowledge to a place where they can internalize greater nuance. I've seen this approach succeed numerous times and have successfully applied the models discussed in the HUPLO book to 5c and 6c for students. I think extra nuance, especially without a high level framework actually leads to confusion and the "Illusion of knowledge".
The "Illusion of knowledge" is a big problem in poker (and chess and economics etc). I think all strong poker coaches have had the experience of a student offering a "game theory" justification for their decision and, after a little questioning, realizing the student doesn't understand the concept at all. This is usually because they've gone from level 2 of poker thought to say level 6 without completing the other steps. More than anything else, I believe this is what blocks people from reaching HS.
I personally believe that with the right system, just about anyone could beat the current state of the games at 10-20 HUPLO online (I can't really speak for 6 max) and have seen this happen repeatedly with my personal students. The mistakes the pool is making are still very large and easy to exploit. As I mentioned to Rahm in a PM, based on the preflop stats of the average stars reg at this level, the monker models show that IP is giving up half(!) their winrate preflop alone. The shorter we are, the harder this is to overcome with later street wizardry.
I believe the book offers the right system and that beliefs such as "most people cannot reach high stakes" are just limiting beliefs that hold both the coach and the student back from their full potential. I respect and appreciate Rahm's thoughts though and leave it to the readers to decide who they think is right.