How valuable would a $215 coach really be?

[Ogre]

I want to be a coach....

I'll only charge $5k at the 100+9 level [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
Ive coached one player and they went on to do fairly well in both the 100s and 200s. It's not something I do anymore because its just not worth the time usually, I'd rather be playing myself. Also the best way to learn poker is not by getting some expert to teach you what to do in certain spots, but by learning how to think and adapt to certain situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

What he said. It might be good to pay a top player for liek 1 or 2 lessons to help teach you how to think. But to get constant and regular training seems like a bad idea to me. Anyone who is willing to do that for a cheap price is almost surely not qualified to do so. There are exceptions to this rule, but in general I wouldn't trust that anyone's true win rate is much higher than whatever they are charging for lessons.

[tigerite]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you know what Gig's brother is up to now?

I'm almost positive he (Iwascastlemn) was sitting on my right in a $22 yesterday. Not that that's really indicative of where he's playing now, but I thought it was a bit strange.

[/ QUOTE ]

SevnFigures was to my left at a $33 the other day.

[newhizzle]

um... yeah thats about rediculous, i wouldnt pay anyone 20-30 gs for training on how to beat any poker game

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you know what Gig's brother is up to now?

I'm almost positive he (Iwascastlemn) was sitting on my right in a $22 yesterday. Not that that's really indicative of where he's playing now, but I thought it was a bit strange.

[/ QUOTE ]

SevnFigures was to my left at a $33 the other day.

[/ QUOTE ]

hes doing something similar to me, learning to play super high volume [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] its not that he cant beat the bigger games, because hes a hell of a player, (overagressive at times maybe...), but the idea of zero variance $100/hr is appealing to quite a few people.. though the idea can at times be overshadowed by reality, as it often is. holla

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Gigabet stated that iamcastleman charged him $20,000

[/ QUOTE ]

You should post the link. It's been a long time since I read that thread. My recollection of that post was that he said he paid his brother $20k, not that he was charged. Semantics of course, but it leads into my next thought.

The reason I bring this up is because this thought has always occurred to me. $20k is a huge up front fee for this IMO. I would wager that the agreement between the brothers was that Giga would pay his brother whatever amount his biggest one month earn was. Speculation of course.

Scuba

[/ QUOTE ]

i also pointed out in an earlier post that SevnFigures/iamcastleman says he bankrolled Giga. maybe the agreement was that he gave Giga the start-up money for his bankroll and Giga had to pay him $20K in profits once he started winning [including probably getting the money he fronted Gig back].

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
say someone is 8 tabling 109s. say they get 10 in per hour. say they have a 10% ROI. they will earn slightly over 100$ an hour. When I played 4 tables of 200nl 6max, I earned 110$ an hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about people who can 12-16 table. It would be hard to believe that anyone could do that profitably at a 200nl 6 max.

The thing that makes the hourly rate go up in SNGs is the fact that you can multitable them much easier than you can in cash games. Yes they do get short handed but for the most part its either push or fold, which in turn makes 12-16 tabling not out of reach.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, so now were 16 tabling. at a 10% ROI. correct me if I'm wrong, but that is damn optimistic, if not unreasonable. we're looking at 200$ an hour, + rakeback. that is definitely earnable if you are a strong 400nl player. and there are soft 1000nl games.


all im saying is that there is a higher ceiling for cash games, and player who focus on them will ultimately become better, more fully equipped poker players. if you are happy with your hourly rate x tabling y limit, great for you. thats good. im not knocking sngs and saying theyre a waste of time, just that I would learn cash games.



there are things that complicate this though. 16 tabling = a dropoff in ROI and burnout. you cant 16 table for long. and i bet it would be possible to 8 table 200 nl 6m, though I havent tried.

[/ QUOTE ]

so do you believe big buy-in NL cash game players are better than big buy-in NL SNG players? [i.e. 2000NL v.s. $215 SNG]

[Oluwafemi]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah. i think it might be worth it for you if you still have enough money left to play 215s assuming all other conditions I listed hold. for example, without a coach, you might start on a 0-2% ROI on 215s, most likely you will lose money when you start at that level right now. if that coach can somehow get you start at 8%-10% ROI, you can get your investment back after playing 1000-1500 215s, which probably will take 2-3 months. and after that you maybe able to get to a higher ROI and all the extra money you make is pure profit.without a coach, it may take you one year longer to reach the same level and very likely you may even never get there by yourself. of course, the training has to be very intense. and when you start playing 215s, your coach may have to sit by you side by side to intruct you on every move then analyze everything after each SNG is finished. this period may take 50-100 SNGs before you can play on your own. and even in that period, a good coach should get hand history from you periodically and critique your play. after a while, if the coach cant find any big hole in your game anymore, you can then be set loose forever. this is why i think the coach has to be very good at both poker and teaching.

[/ QUOTE ]

so you believe the time for someone learning to beat the $215s on their on own is long enough to where a $20-$30K tuition fee would be worth the price to learn to beat them faster?

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
Possibly the factor that makes cash games more profitable is rakeback though. I don't know for sure but I think the cash game players are getting a lot more rakeback.

[/ QUOTE ]

That makes sense. At least at Party, you get credit for your % of the rake whether or not you're actually in the hand (i.e. your rake = total rake for the hand / # of players). If the pots are huge in the hands you don't play, and small in the hands you do, I think you could get more in rakeback than you actually pay in rake.

[Phill S]

[ QUOTE ]
so do you believe big buy-in NL cash game players are better than big buy-in NL SNG players? [i.e. 2000NL v.s. $215 SNG]

[/ QUOTE ]

Being good in one doesnt make you bad in another, so in a way the skill sets arent mutually exclusive - J Strasser plays high NL games (1K and 2K as far as im aware) and he is well known as a winning SnG player at all buy ins.

But generally speaking, the skills required to beat 2K NL are much greater in number and difficulty to learn than the high buy in SnG games.

Phill