Quote:
Originally Posted by Dire
This sounds good in theory, but in reality there are lots of otherwise perfectly intelligent individuals who just don't really do very well at poker for whatever reason. There is something simply wrong with their thought process that obviously eludes them, meaning it's also likely to be fairly subtle. I mean you're not going to have an intelligent individual tell you: "Ok we have the nuts here. Let's check and sucker him and hopefully catch him with a check raise, probably for min so we make sure he doesn't fold. Ok now we have air here. Let's go ahead and triple barrel."
We've already said these are perfectly intelligent individuals. The problem then is that they are going to be able to convey perfectly logical and cohesive thoughts about poker, but somewhere in those thoughts there's a flaw and a subtle flaw at that. As a student, if I feel I could easily figure out where a person's thought process is flawed then I'm not too likely to want to pay them to share their thought process with me. On the other hand, if I don't feel I could figure out where their thought process is flawed then how am I to know which knowledge I can safely 'absorb' and which knowledge is that Achilles's heel still keeping said teacher from managing to convert their depth of knowledge into results?
I suppose the gist of what I mean is that I think, especially in poker, the separation between theory and praxis is razor thin. I certainly have found that as my depth of understanding has increased, my results have also increased proportionally. And speech is in and of itself a skill. Just because someone can speak eloquently and intelligently on the subject of poker does not necessarily make them justified to try to teach the game to others.
I highly disagree with the bolded part, and also disagree with your general claim. In fact, I believe that the majority of intelligent people, if they were to sit down and write out some poker theory, with enough time and editing would explain a better game than they play.
Why? Because most people do not play their A game all the time, but most people can, with enough time and editing, put their A game into writing. So whether a poker player is a winner or not does not necessarily translate to whether his theory and advice is good.
I believe this concept holds true for coaching as well, although coaching is more difficult because often you cannot edit your thoughts. But I do believe there are plenty of breakeven players that could probably improve a lot of winning players' games, simply because they understand and can explain important concepts, but they just have a difficult time employing them in practice due to lack of focus or whatever.
I can't speak about this particular subject (Ed Miller's book), because I haven't read it and haven't even watched his videos. But I did want to comment on your claim that in poker the line between theory and practice is very thin. It really is not.