Can "non-players" be greatteachers?

[MrTeddyKGB]

Quite possible, I would rather get coached by Ed Miller than Phil Hellmuth or T.J. or any number of top players who may be accoplished but not necessarly be able to teach or explain as well.

[MelchyBeau]

ok, this is my 2 cents.

I believe it is possible, relize to be a good poker player it not only requires theoretical knowledge of the game, a strong sense of math, but also control. A person may know his actions are bad, and can tell you why they are, but he will still follow through with them.

thus you hear the phrase, do as I say, not as I do

Melch

[SeattleJake]

In poker, like chess, yes.

Playing and teaching are two different disciplines. I can teach chess, but I don't have the skills to be a great player. My son can sometimes beat me at chess, but he still has a lot to learn. Naturally there's a level at which you can't learn directly from a coach -- but even then you would still need them to toss ideas back and forth, practice with, and help you study.

[SittingBull]

who won that contest... My money was on Phil Hellmuth...I had the impression that David was too much of a theorist.
In fact,I thought that he would have come in last against these players.
SittingBull
[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[SittingBull]

who are skillful but lack the psychological bankroll to play
properly is one group.
SittingBull [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[David Sklansky]

"Quite possible, I would rather get coached by Ed Miller than Phil Hellmuth or T.J. or any number of top players who may be accoplished but not necessarly be able to teach or explain as well."

That doesn't answer the original question. Clearly there are some very good, successful players who can explain how to win at poker better than some who are even more successful. But the question was whether there are actually unsuccessful players who could teach poker well. None exist.

[Al Schoonmaker]

I'm not sure which contest you mean. David won "The Battle of the Books" against Doyle, Phil, Mike Caro, TJ, Mike Sexton, and perhaps one or two others.

He won the first two rounds of heads up play against Johnny Chan and Phil Ivey. Phil won that event, and it is reported in the current issue of "Card Player." You can read the report at cardplayer.com.

David is most definitely not "just" a theorist. However, he does NOT claim to be one of the greatest players.

Regards,

Al

[Guruman]

I'd have to say that an excellent poker teacher would have to understand certain things at a high level in order to have the skills to coach a talented individual into greatness:

1)the rules of the game
2)gambling theory
3)pot odds and statistics for drawing hands
4)trick plays like bluffs, checkraises, and free card plays
5)the reasons your opponenets will call a bet (and how to induce calls)
6)the reasons your opponents will fold to a bet (and how to induce folds)
7)ways to keep one's own play at a high level (not just avoiding tilt, but actually contiguously playing one's A game)

If someone had a firm grip on all of these things then he could probably become a worthy teacher of great poker players. 6 of 7 may not cut it.

Since a worthy teacher must understand all of these concepts well enough to teach them at a high level, I don't see how he could be a sub-par poker player himself.

The psychological aspects of the game are as important as the mathematical ones, and a good teacher will have mastered them all.

[motorholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
who are skillful but lack the psychological bankroll to play
properly is one group.
SittingBull [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks to all who answered the question. I never thought the post would generate so much discussion.

Sitting Bull, you hit the point that I was really thinking about. I was envsioning a brilliant tactician/strategist/analyst, etc, who, for on reason or another, has some psychological barrier that would not allow him/her to actually "perform" well under the pressure of a real game. Someone with an anxiety condition, for example, might fall into this category. Also, there are many people who can think "deeply", but they can't think deeply and "quickly." These people, however, may make great teachers.

I believe such folks (in certain circumstances) could be great teachers, as long as they are open about the shortcomings that prevent them from actually playing the game anymore.