Dont see this discussed anywhere. Been discussed before, but PTR has done some work on it too:

http://www.pokertableratings.com/coaches?source=email

kinda ******ed that they would post cash game results for coaches who clearly specialize in MTTs

other than that I don't think the winrate is necessarily the only factor in the quality of a coach, the ability to explain concepts and teaching methods are far more important imo

In b4 a crapload of breakeven 10NL players who start to take it out on coaches.

If the cast of "2 months 2 million" could try again and actually make their goal, they would still be down $663,768 as a group.






Not hating on any of them in any way, but how can someone look at this and say "COACH ME PLZ!"???

I love the part where it writes "Discover [some SN] winning strategy".

Ptr always gets poker players losses wrong

lol at you thinking ptr is accurate... lock

Money made before PTR. Hands missed by PTR. Money made on other screen names/sites. Money made live.

Truth is we will never know.

It's not accurate overall but it gives a decent indication of performance over sample sizes..

It is known that PTR misses hands, but there isn't any known bias in the hands it tracks/misses, so it's quite safe to assume that those screennames OP used are down a lot of money during the time PTR has been tracking them.

There's many way better arguments than "hurrrr durrrr PTR is missing a lot of hands" if you want to defend those players, for example possibility of playing under different sites/SNs,playing live or the fact that they have positive bb/100 winrates (ie. ran bad at nosebleed shots). But simply ignoring those results because "PTR is inaccurate" is quite ignorant.

I have a lot of respect for all four players, but on avarage poker players seem super ignorant and overestimate the winnings/edge of many famous/respected players (ie. winrates over 5ptbb/100 were considered "decent" before PTR started tracking, which is when ppl realized that very few players are >2ptbb/100 winners at 6max mid/highstakes)

...and until someone can demonstrate that it misses WINNINGS with a greater frequency than LOSSES (a ******ed proposition), comments like the first two are dumb. It's still the most representative snapshot we have of the data set we have (pre-PTR results notwithstanding)

If anything, it suggests that their actual losses would be greater than what PTR shows.

EDIT: Chinz beat me to it.

Can we please get rid of ptr already that site is definitely going to kill poker if it hasnt already

That's not it at all. 5ptBB was considered decent because it was alot easier to do pre 2008. PTR or not I saw graphs from many a reputable player around 2005-07 with winrates around these margins that were definitely on the level. I was a 3ptBB winner in my own games (lol LHE) around these times - and I was horrible. I definitely believe that 5ptBB was the norm because for a good regular it was just that - the norm.

Also consider that the game type and stake matters a lot. It's not difficult to earn >5ptBB at HU bumhunting for e.g. but if you play anybody that sits with you it's going to be exceedingly difficult.

haha as soon as I saw that list I knew this thread would just be about deucescracked coaches losses

can someone explain me how u can have a negative winrate and being up a million. is it really only rakeback? ( see aejones )

skelm:
That is also true and part of the reason (I certainly believe that best players won way more than 5ptbb/100 in 6max games back in 2006), but majority of people certainly didn't realize how tough the games actually are to beat with good winrate before PTR... A lot of people were really surprised to see how few big winners there actually are and that some "good regulars" are breakeven. It's not like PTR somehow caused regulars' winrates to drop into one third in just 2-6 months, people were too optimistic and not realizing how biased their winrate samples are (biggest winners are more likely to post results, and people are more likely to post samples where they are winning a lot). For some weird reason 90% of coaches (who had like 50-200k hand samples as their reference) suddenly started "running bad" or claiming "PTR misses my winnings"...

In HU games bumhunters can still have those huge winrates, and PTR does pretty much verify that >10ptbb/100 is still sustainable small/midstakes.


If you lose 100 buy-ins at NL2 and then win one at NL5k you are up a lot of money, but still down 99 buy-ins.

not end well, this will

PT is about as accurate as my descriptions of my sexual exploits when I was 16.

This. I don't know if BBV still does the month-end chart posting thread, but you don't think something's a tad self-selective when all of the graphs posted show winrates that are through the roof?

Chinz has a good point about the winrate thing too, Skelm -- and it wasn't PTR that first "outted" them, it was PokerTracker...several years ago, even before PTR tracked hands, someone posted their PT screenshot over something like 1M hands, and everyone was shocked that the biggest winners (with sample sizes > 100K hands), a list that was the veritable who's who of HSNL 'beasts', only had winrates of 2-2.5 PTBB.

Granted that was at 25/50 and with little to no game selection, but still: that was one of the first threads that made people sit up and realize that the 5-10 PTBB winners were outliers / a product of SSS.

Looking at the results of those 4 players (yes i kow ptr misses hands, they play on other sites and live) it makes me question if all these "pros" actually make their living off poker anymore and not just other venture like poker training sites, sponsorships and tv shows ect. Like for e.g. these 4 all down money since 08 from what ptr tells us, but they are instructures. Does everyone here really think they make enough money from poker anymore to cover their living costs, since 08? Because thats the definition of a pro right? Even if you look at like Cole south, acording to ptr hes not even i profit anymore, but he owns part of cardrunners. IMO his income is coming from cardrunners not poker anymore, thus is should no longer be classed a pro. It seems only the best pros are actually now pros, as they are winning money off the weaker pros, thats the stage it has got to. Maybe I dnot have a clue, just my opinion, just seams that way.

yeah ignore the fact that emil is up a 1/4 of a million crushing plo in '10 on stars and ignore the fact dani is up 300k in last 6 month on stars...........gee who would want to pay to see them play

Because he is a losing player at the stakes he plays on fulltilt, took a shot at the nosebleeds ran really well, hence hes up a million, but still a losing player.

Disagree.


If you play a couple mirrion hands and PTR captures 95% of that, then it should give a pretty accurate picture of your winrate, playing style....

How about this you play 5/10 plo+ for 50k of hands and not lose 100k or more then judge how good some of these guys are?

The hell does this have to do with anything? Most of us couldn't beat that game, but we're not selling ourselves as coaches or even "pros".