My Coaching - Page 2

wobbly is a faggot

also another question

After the "This is Wrong" thread, PTR indicates that you started playing much more online poker and your PTR increased. After a while though it went back down even further then it was before and you stopped playing. It seems that the cessation of play is more in time with your downswing and perhaps realization that, without intense drive and/or focus you are a loser at the stake instead of the emergence of 2/4 RUSH

it was probably wholly unnecessary for you to post this because the people that matter and who are intelligent enough to make use of the post search functionality of the site already know what it is that you have to offer as a poker coach.

On September 06 2010 03:28 Steal City wrote:
In the thread you had said you would answer all questions posed to you in the "This is Wrong Thread"

Do you believe you are a winning player online at 3/6?

Most fish believe they are winning players, how can you prove you are a winning player at the highest stakes and game types that you teach. (I think you will agree live and online are two different things)

- yes i do and i can only prove it by playing and showing it.

Would it not be profitable for a 25nl player who has played extensively for many years and is well versed in poker lingo and a good speaker to adapt a coaching profit sharing program? Because of the scientific studied effects of authority and because even if you had selected people and never coached them they would still likely make profit since presumably they were already 100nl winning players or the like... how can you justify that, just because they have to perform for you to make money that you are indeed the cause?

- gonna be pretty hard for a 25nl player to give people guidance in improving their games, so, no, i don't think clueless players will be able to convincingly say "this is what you need to work on, and this is how you can work on it" without people realizing that they are full of it. a lot of the benefit of my program comes from accountability and guidance in self-management as well, which are not strategic or technical aspects of being a poker player. also, my long-term contract has an exit clause that allows students to quit whenever they want and pro-rate the payment.

Do you think that the psychological idea of congruence and rationalization could completely bias your student's opinions about your coaching program? For instance, if you take a bunch of fish poker players, if they win money they will very often attribute it to their skill in the game despite semi set ups and preflop run goods et cetera or even just too many hands holding up. (Your students are not fish but they are capable of misjudging the cause of their performace, ie they may perform well because of their already 3 years experience and understanding of the game but may attribute it to your coaching)

- of course people can believe things that aren't true, can be misled, and can be manipulated. of course people are biased in their opinions of their friends and people they respect. i can't really help that facet of human nature. i can only continue to do what i do as well as i can do it and let people judge the value of my coaching for themselves and help me improve that coaching as much as i can.

If Neilly replicated your coaching program, would you think that would be ethical of him? Why or why not?

- no. what is unethical about selling something? if people have the information they need (they know neilly's game and coaching philosophy), and he gives them a sample/interview lesson to let them decide for themselves, then he's not being deceiving or misleading. if somebody were to say "neilly's students are stupid for paying for his coaching," then whatever, they are entitled to their opinions and who cares. that doesn't make his practice unethical.

How is your situation different?

- from what?

Can you name a 3/6 or higher online winning player who gives 100+ hours of coaching a month ever?

- no, i don't really keep tabs on the number of hours that anyone coaches, except myself.

Would you think it ethical if you were to never play a game of poker again but live off coaching for the next say, 3 years?

- of course not. it would be wrong of me to tell my students "i have a read on this guy you are playing against" if i don't have that read, but it wouldn't at ALL be wrong of me to tell him "i haven't played in a year and a half but i can see from your database that you are losing a lot of money when faced with 2nd barrels, let's explore your play against c-bets and 2-barrels and find out how we can change your thought process so that you are playing better against them."

Since you have sometimes been teaching a game you do not play and you live play and tournament play are irrelevant, how is your situation different from the last question posed?

- i don't teach games that i don't play.in particular, i do not take share of my students' profits in HU or PLO or anything other than 6max/9max NLH cash and tournaments. and poker is always poker and guidance is always guidance. if i ever have too little experience (say, coaching someone who plays on a euro site) to make a specific read on someone, then i put in extra time working with them to build their reads through HEM, note-taking, etc. i have to spend extra time working with my european students and have them send me videos of their play so that i can have a better idea of just how their games play. that is an impediment at times but there's DEFINITELY no good reason to say that just because i play live, i can't see when somebody has a poor sense of position, a poor work ethic, poor note-taking habits, plays too many pots without the betting lead, etc.

How professionally do you believe you have handled the criticism that have been made public of you with the start of my thread?

- i have apologized for the tardiness of this blog post.

Why were you being secretive during out AIM conversation and why have you been so slow at providing answers to the community?

- i have been slow in responding because i haven't played the volume i said i would play, as i stated in the OP. and refusing to answer unprompted questions from a stranger isn't "being secretive." you are grilling me about my poor results on PTR and i don't have to talk to you about it.

On September 06 2010 04:19 Steal City wrote: also another question After the "This is Wrong" thread, PTR indicates that you started playing much more online poker and your PTR increased. After a while though it went back down even further then it was before and you stopped playing. It seems that the cessation of play is more in time with your downswing and perhaps realization that, without intense drive and/or focus you are a loser at the stake instead of the emergence of 2/4 RUSH

yeah that's not a coincidence, i had a huge losing day and played fairly badly that day, took some time off to play lower and work on my game away from the tables. then 2/4 rush came out and i've primarily played that since then

One thing to be made clear when I'm saying you're coaching for games you cannot beat I'm not talking about NL vs PLO of 6m vs HU. I'm talking about stakes. If you coach 3/6 you should be able to beat 3/6. (agree/disagree? seems like agree bc of the 25nl player question) You said you can beat 3/6 but there is verifiable evidence (taking into account possible bad/run volatility) in your PTR which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that you in fact do not beat 3/6... You cannot just make a blanketed statement saying you can do something when there is proof that you cannot do it.


As per the 25nl player question, a 25NL player would have a hard time helping people improve their games(yes) but maybe not making people think he's helping their games. So you just repeated my question in your answer. If you are a 3/6 losing player as your PTR proves you are (if someone has a PTR reverse of yours it proves beyond reasonable doubt that they are a winning player) then is it wrong for you to teach 3/6? Is it wrong for you to make CR vids for teaching 3/6 online?

neilly is a bonafied losing player at ring. If he teaches ring NL he is teaching something he cannot beat. Do you think if he implemented your exact program including the stakes and game types that you teach it would be ethical?

Steal city you make some decent points, but don't just say the same thing again....

- If a 25 NL player tried to teach someone who knew enough to beat 100NL or w/e it would be pretty clear to see that he's bullshitting in no time at all, come on Steal you have half a brain you can see by the way Myth talks and thinks about poker that he's not a 25 NL player.

- Also, Neilly implements his exact programme? How's he going to do that... If he word for word says the same things as Myth then thats fine... But obviously he's not going to be able to. As I said you made some reasonable points but the last 2 paragraphs are just either plain wrong or with the latter just OT

On September 06 2010 05:12 KeyleK_uk wrote: Steal city you make some decent points, but don't just say the same thing again.... - If a 25 NL player tried to teach someone who knew enough to beat 100NL or w/e it would be pretty clear to see that he's bullshitting in no time at all, come on Steal you have half a brain you can see by the way Myth talks and thinks about poker that he's not a 25 NL player. - Also, Neilly implements his exact programme? How's he going to do that... If he word for word says the same things as Myth then thats fine... But obviously he's not going to be able to. As I said you made some reasonable points but the last 2 paragraphs are just either plain wrong or with the latter just OT

I know some 25nl player who can really talk the talk. I see proof that myth is a losing 3/6 player so i don't get it, just because he is eloquent with words or something he can teach a limit he cannot beat? I am not sure what you are saying KeyleK_uk?

FYI, I'm obviously using extreme examples to prove my point but yes, there are many people like neilly who have been playing for a long time and having a discussion with them from a standpoint that they are an authority figure it can be very hard to judge what limit someone plays... especially if say myth can beat 1/2, it won't be too hard for him to act like he can beat 3/6 even if he can't. I know a few people who at least barely beat 50nl but could really talk the talk and sound more poker versed, even to a high stakes player than make 1/2 players... and i'm being conservative in my figures here

Steal City I have to disagree with you.. Being a good coach is different from being a good player.

Look at Tommy Angelo... The dude plays with a fragment of money of the people he teaches, yet it doesn't stop people like Phil Galfond to give him $10k for a week of coaching and benefit from it hugely...

Myth obviously doesn't have the drive and discipline to beat 3/6+ online over a decent sample (Don't lie to yourself Myth, there is no way you could play 240k+ hands/3months at those stakes and have a 3BB/100+ winrate), but that doesn't mean at all his advice on position, ranges and various concepts will not help tremendously to people that do have the drive and discipline which he lacks, and it absolutely doesn't imply that he is not a good teacher.

Hell, even Neilly would surely have a lot to give, even in cash games to a player who doesn't go on rampage degen tilts that purge his BR like Neilly does and always will.


If you simplify this so much you would basically say that all winners would make good coaches, and that is absolutely not the case.

On September 06 2010 05:26 LemOn[5thF] wrote: Steal City I have to disagree with you.. Being a good coach is different from being a good player. Look at Tommy Angelo... The dude plays with a fragment of money of the people he teaches, yet it doesn't stop people like Phil Galfond to give him $10k for a week of coaching and benefit from it hugely... Myth obviously doesn't have the drive and discipline to beat 3/6+ online over a decent sample (Don't lie to yourself Myth, there is no way you could play 240k+ hands/3months at those stakes and have a 3BB/100+ winrate), but that doesn't mean at all his advice on position, ranges and various concepts will not help tremendously to people that do have the drive and discipline which he lacks, and it absolutely doesn't imply that he is not a good teacher. Hell, even Neilly would surely have a lot to give, even in cash games to a player who doesn't go on rampage degen tilts that purge his BR like Neilly does and always will. If you simplify this so much you would basically say that all winners would make good coaches, and that is absolutely not the case.

i didn't say all winners would make good coaches, just that it should be a prerequisite. By ur logic all losers, might make a good coach if in one aspect they are better than you. You can get a vocal music coach to teach you how to breathe while playing poker.

Myth is teaching poker strategy from his own accounts. He's not teaching relaxation methods or things like Tommy Angelo. Tommy Angelo isn't a poker coach, he's a life coach or a focus coach and he advertises himself that way. (from what i know*)

On September 06 2010 05:39 Steal City wrote: Show nested quote + On September 06 2010 05:26 LemOn[5thF] wrote: Steal City I have to disagree with you.. Being a good coach is different from being a good player. Look at Tommy Angelo... The dude plays with a fragment of money of the people he teaches, yet it doesn't stop people like Phil Galfond to give him $10k for a week of coaching and benefit from it hugely... Myth obviously doesn't have the drive and discipline to beat 3/6+ online over a decent sample (Don't lie to yourself Myth, there is no way you could play 240k+ hands/3months at those stakes and have a 3BB/100+ winrate), but that doesn't mean at all his advice on position, ranges and various concepts will not help tremendously to people that do have the drive and discipline which he lacks, and it absolutely doesn't imply that he is not a good teacher. Hell, even Neilly would surely have a lot to give, even in cash games to a player who doesn't go on rampage degen tilts that purge his BR like Neilly does and always will. If you simplify this so much you would basically say that all winners would make good coaches, and that is absolutely not the case. i didn't say all winners would make good coaches, just that it should be a prerequisite. By ur logic all losers, might make a good coach if in one aspect they are better than you. You can get a vocal music coach to teach you how to breathe while playing poker. Myth is teaching poker strategy from his own accounts. He's not teaching relaxation methods or things like Tommy Angelo. Tommy Angelo isn't a poker coach, he's a life coach or a focus coach and he advertises himself that way. (from what i know*)

But how does it matter - If it is not taking enough breaks, being results oriented, not sitting up straight or raising too wide UTG and 3betting too much oop...Those are all individual aspects of the game, and the success of the player equals the sum of them all.

If Myth is good at everything except tilt control and discipline to play consistently over large samples, and only these two things make him a loser then surely he can give a lot to his students, who do have the balls to sit down, play and focus on every pot over extended periods of time instead of posting on the forums and whining and tilting half their online BR in one session like Myth did.

And yes, I can't see why a loser that is better than me in one aspect of the game wouldn't make a good coach, IN THAT ONE ASPECT OF THE GAME.

Edit: It seems that you think of a coach as a person who teaches you everything from A to B and you should ultimately transform into your coach's image. Thats the case for NL2 coaches, but when you get to the levels Myth (or Mourinho, or Hitchcock, or whatever coaches are in the weird US sports) teaches, it is more about keeping the players overall play and helping him to work only on specific aspects that he could improve, and better yet, to challenge him and provide alternatives so that the player can realize them and develop himself.

Sports coaches are fat and can't do shit in the sports they train, Myth is lazy and doesn't have proper tilt control and can't do shit by grinder standards, but these guys still can make great teachers.

Lemon, the comment you quoted can be restated as a reply to your reply to it... but this isn't an endless loop, you seem to have missed my point

On September 06 2010 06:27 Steal City wrote: Lemon, the comment you quoted can be restated as a reply to your reply to it... but this isn't an endless loop, you seem to have missed my point

So what is your point, I don't get it. And Tommy is a poker coach indeed and betting strategy and tilt control are all part of poker btw

why is the only argument for the ppl on the myth side like "a sport coach dont need to be good at the sport he coaches so a pokercoach dosnt need to be good either"

its like, not even close to being the same thing dudes

[ ] ptr is 100% accurate
[x] myth is beating 3/6 on Diagonals PTR (just look at Diagonals's Results by Game Stake, and use simple math)
[ ] myth has a big sample
[?] myth is a good coach (I guess on this one, only his students can answer)

who gives a fuck anyway...?

steal city vs myth HU4ROLZ 321 FIGH GOGOGOGOGOGO

On September 06 2010 06:42 morph1 wrote: [ ] ptr is 100% accurate [x] myth is beating 3/6 on Diagonals PTR (just look at Diagonals's Results by Game Stake, and use simple math) [ ] myth has a big sample [?] myth is a good coach (I guess on this one, only his students can answer) who gives a fuck anyway...?

[x] PTR is incredibly accurate and even a sample of 100k+ hands which are randomly selected will do the justice so it wouldn't matter if PTR only tracked 50% of hands as long as it doesn't have a bias when tracking hands which is doesn't
[x] he is losing at 1/2 and 2/4, statistically speaking he is losing at the limits he plays, of which 3/6 is the highest
[x] myth has a big enough sample to statistically prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is losing at the stakes he coaches

It seems that Steal City wants some free coaching -.-

Why don't you have a session with Myth so that he can prove his point to you (Obv recorded and shared with LP)

On September 06 2010 06:50 Steal City wrote: Show nested quote + On September 06 2010 06:42 morph1 wrote: [ ] ptr is 100% accurate [x] myth is beating 3/6 on Diagonals PTR (just look at Diagonals's Results by Game Stake, and use simple math) [ ] myth has a big sample [?] myth is a good coach (I guess on this one, only his students can answer) who gives a fuck anyway...? [x] PTR is incredibly accurate and even a sample of 100k+ hands which are randomly selected will do the justice so it wouldn't matter if PTR only tracked 50% of hands as long as it doesn't have a bias when tracking hands which is doesn't [x] he is losing at 1/2 and 2/4, statistically speaking he is losing at the limits he plays, of which 3/6 is the highest [x] myth has a big enough sample to statistically prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is losing at the stakes he coaches

i just glanced at Diagonals ptr but it looks like overall he's up money at 3/6 and under...?