The biggest problem with coaching IMHO is not the existence of scammers, but we as players having no objective, reliable way to judge them. Testimonials are subjective, and are biased to the positive side by people not wanting to be too harsh, even though harsh might be justified (but having no problem with praising), plus the way things go with ego and unnecessary arguments etc.

To me, a system where students (after some sort of verification that they were really students of X coach) can vote/rate (only once) their coaches, from 0 to 10, and a fixed post with those rankings so prospective students can compare, and also making this a requirement for the coaches to keep their "verified" status, would be better than what we do have nowadays.

Luv that 100K hand stat in the OP chart. I just lived the max downside of that and of course was utterly scoffed at by conventional takes.

Here's how it works:

If you post a losing graph where you run bottom 1% then you are obviously a terrible player. If you post a winning graph then you still suck but you are just running hot.

Some people think like this but people mostly interpret their results the other way in the poker world tbh.

Like the guy you replied to who obviously thinks that hes good and running below EV, and doesnt even consider the chance that he might just suck at poker and run at or even above EV despite losing. Or how every single interview or podcast with people with great results, I have heard a grand total of zero (0) people admit that running above EV is part of why they are "crushing" poker.

Basically all crushers have run far above EV during their careers. Doesnt mean they are bad, they obviously still ARE crushers skill wise. But if they had a 2 years stretch of bad run at the start of their poker journey, they would most likely have quit poker instead of playing their way up to the highest stakes. Or at best kept playing at a hobby level and just be a good fun player.

OTB_RedBaron broke even over 850k hands at the start of his career.

He clearly didnt run bad as he begun on lower stakes over his first 150k hands.

The downswing after half a million hands from 25k to busto must have hurt. Pretty sure after that BRM went out the window lol.

I know. I only posted it because I just re-read his very entertaining thread: Beat: Lost 80%+ of my roll again

You know OTB_RedBaron had a private solver way before they were public right? That's why he went from break-even to absolutely crushing everyone. He wasn't some prodigy (although I wish he was since that would make it a cooler story).

There's a reason he doesn't play high stakes anymore and it's because the playing field is level now.

Put the armor where the bullet holes are duh.......

That is true for random sample, but most graphs posted are cherry picked extremes.

I deleted a bunch of posts. I hope the thread can be free of derails going forward.

I'm curious how you cherry pick a graph? The most accurate graph is your most recent results because you get better the longer you play (hopefully). Choosing graphs from years ago doesn't make sense if you are studying the game since you are a different player.

This is even more true in recent years online as the tools to get better have gotten more and more sophisticated for poker players.

In addition, sometimes the games change. So your graph from long ago may also not be accurate today for that reason.

Mason

Basically you are right, but there could be a tendency to mostly present graphs when people are crushing. And you can choose how much of the recent hands you show. How does it look if you present say half the amount or double the amount of recent hands?

thats why actually enjoying poker >>> enjoying the results, if you only care about the results you will quit after the first really bad stretch of hands, if you love the game you can endure 200k hands of breakeven. Obviously I agree that a lot of the big name crushers (especially back in the day), for the most part, have run well above EV in their careers, but in the modern game it's easier to see where the edge lies and easier to persevere and make it out. FWIW I imagine I'm well above EV even over 1m+ hands of poker I've played, but I was losing at micros for the first year of poker I played. Everyone will have that hot run that allows them to move up eventually, just for some it happens in 1-2 years and some it will take 4-5 years.

No one is posting a graph where they break even for 100k hands in coaching thread.
Just like in your OP, only one of the bots will post after 500k hands offering coaching. He is not miss leading on purpose, its just that ppl post graphs with some reason that reason creates a bias which makes posted graphs non random.

In that case I suggest you update your coaching thread with your most recent results on the 1st day of every month. No exceptions and no changing of dates or we'll know you are cherry picking.

Not really sure the exact order (if the downer came before or after), but a relatively well known 2p2er who was a stable owner had a crushing graph over a reasonable sample, then had an 80 bi downswing. Regardless of how good the guy is (people seemed to regard him as a good player, his peers are well respected etc), and how bad he ran when he had this downswing, and the fact it would be terrible PR posting it even if it was the bad run of a lifetime and I don't know what is the "GTO" in this case business/ethical-wise, posting only the good run when advertising the CFP is obviously cherry picking.

Yes so I agree selection bias occurs when coaches post graphs but only on the initial graph. Every graph after the initial graph will fit the criteria of random sample as long as there is no lapse wrt to the dates/time.

Yes this should be a 2p2 policy but it has inherent biases.

What about all the coaches (yes there are many go look it up) that either:

1. Don't actively play anymore but still coach

2. Coach theory and don't play online

Do they get a free pass to go about business as usual while I have to employ 3 strategies (reg/fish/bot) and consistently prove myself month after month?

Come back to me when you have thought about it some more.

Coach should prove himself with results of his students that is what is most important.

Verified coach is bit confusing, it seem more special that it actually is imho.

That's the part that always gets lost. I don't know any other field where success is measured by how successful the coach is at performing the activity instead of how successful the student is. If you hire a guitar teacher for your kid, is your objective for them to learn the instrument or for their teacher to perform on stage?

Why is that?

If I ask Google how to become a verified seller on ebay, it lists me the following steps:

1. Confirming your identity.
2. Uploading documents to eBay.
3. Verifying your banking details.
4. Providing your social security number.

In my personal life, (among other things) we operate a taproom for our craft beer brand. The Untappd app/website is pretty important in the industry. To get your venue "verified" you pay a substantial yearly fee. That's it. Barely any other questions asked outside your billing information.

On X/Twitter, in the past you got the checkmark by verifying your identity (and being important enough). These days you get it by paying a monthly fee. Does anyone think the latter is a better verification process?

On X and ebay they verify identity, because on eBay there are legal and/or financial consequences if you scam and on X you want to know that you are talking to a person not a bot.

Verified coach sounds (to me) more like verification of competence.