Poker Lessons/Coaching

[thatpfunk]

Bruiser,
How much more effective or "expert" do you feel Ciaffone's coaching has been via e-mail than 2+2 responses? Obviously you can get much more in-depth but I am curious as to whether you believe it is worth in monetarily when there are posters here who have quite a bit of expereince as well and are willing to respond to your posts.

If you don't wish to comment on the monetary side of it I understand, just curious [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[DyessMan89]

Poker lessons? That kind of sounds ... loserish?

Read some books, ask your friends, but I dont think you need to get "poker lessons".

[tipperdog]

I have (and continue to) take poker lessons from a respected pro player. I send him hand histories along with a narrative explaining my actions and then he tells me all the mistakes I've made [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img], either live or via phone. Sometimes, he'll discuss general topics and provide a few examples, but usually, we review my play.

Without question, the lessons have been +EV for me. In our first session, he correctly ID'd a significant leak in my game, and that one tip alone paid for my lesson in 2-3 hours of playing time.

I pay on a flat fee basis, and I can't imagine any other way. This way, he gets paid whether or not I accept his advice, and we don't have any kind of complex percentage-fee agreement. We've joked about how much more $$ he'd make if paid "on commission," but I'd never seriously consider it.

I don't know if the previous poster was serious in describing coaching as a "loserish" arrangement. I hope not. But if so, I guess that makes me a "loser" (albeit one who's significant increased his hourly rate).

I'm comfortable trading the label for the extra chips.

[TheGrifter]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker lessons? That kind of sounds ... loserish?

Read some books, ask your friends, but I dont think you need to get "poker lessons".

[/ QUOTE ]

[cornell2005]

hahahahahaha

[AdamBragar]

How does one go about finding a poker coach? Seriously, I don't know any pro poker players myself, and it's not like they are in the yellow pages.

[bunky9590]

Hey Mike,

Nice to have you back.

Id seriously consider it. Depends on the way they are structured. But there are a few people on this board that I would pay for lessons from on a one to one basis. That list however is very short.

[Leroy Soesman]

This has me laughing out loud at the office.

THANKS GRIFTER FOR GETTING ME FIRED! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[SA125]

I think it's an interesting subject. The problem I see with coaching in poker is that, for a coach to be successful in bringing their players to higher levels, you have to be able to demonstrate and reinforce the practices of the skills you believe are fundamental to success.

I think the main thing you can get from from reading books and feedback in a forum are basic strategy and concept ideas, like a lot of the answers to cj's thread about stepping up. That's why I thought Tommy's reply about the intangibles was so good. I think that's what a poker coach can add the most of to your game.

I reached another level when I recognized I was one of the few players at the table who knew and understood how to play "by the numbers". But sitting down at a table and going over who is who and what situations and plays might work against which player is something I think the better players do as automatically and as naturally as they count pot odds. It's not the same as labling TAG, LAG, etc. It's more than that. It's looking at the players and thinking of a spot to make a play just as naturally as you count the pot on the first hand.

I think a coach that you can play with and have him show you why he made that play against that guy in that situation, would add something that no book or forum can. You'd relate to it a lot better. Sorry for the long post.

[turnipmonster]

I think there's a couple issues with why more people don't take lessons. #1 is, it's hard to find a really good coach especially for mid-high stakes PL/NL games. most people strong enough to teach also play and don't want to educate the competition.

#2 is, it's hard to coach people without either having played with them or going through hand histories to sort of get an idea of the way they play. so much is dependent on image at the higher levels.

--turnipmonster