Can "non-players" be greatteachers?

[motorholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
We see it other sports: the great football coach who didn't have the talent to make it; the great golf coach who could not play anywhere near the level of those who seek his guidance, etc. We have also seen the flipside - the superstar with tons of talent and instinct and couldn't teach a sole anything if his life depended on it...

I was wondering if anyone knows of personal or other examples of the same thing in poker -the great non-playing teacher. Someone who can analyze play at the highest level, and indentify gaps and recommend fixes, but for one reason or another are not succesful players themselves.


Maybe it is anxiety, or maybe they can't perform under pressure, maybe they don't have the "gamble" in them, or it could be a host of things.

I'm just wondering if anyone has run into such a person.
Are there valuable human resources out there that are not being tapped into because they are not top level players?

Thoughts??

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me add some further context to my original question. Before considering the outright "no" as an answer, here is what I was thinking.

Hypothetically, you have player "A" that know 75% of everything there is to know about holdem (don't beat me up on this 75% part, I'm just trying to build a context for the question). Then you have player "B" who knows 95% of everything there is to know about holdem.

The problem is that Player A is a better "player" than player B, and player B admittedly struggles with the fact that he can't seem to apply his knowledge in the heat of the game or under pressure , or whatever. Player B has resigned himself to being a humble (but expert) non-playing student of the game. Also, many players seek his guidance on complex technical aspects of the game.

I guess I'm not sure why the above could not, and does not, exist. Could player A not gain value from a mentor, even though the mentor does not play?

[Shaman]

The answer is an absolute yes. Great business and industry leaders like Jack Welch of GE, John Reed of Citicorp, and Andrew Grove of Intel seek a lot of coaching from Peter Drucker yet he has never managed ANYTHING his entire life, not even a group of more than 2 people or even a secretary. Drucker is a pure theorist who has never "walked the walk" yet the top business leaders treat his wisdom as that of God's.

Poker is just as intellectual as management. Unlike sports, there is almost nothing physical about it.

[poker-penguin]

There are great chess coaches / consultants who can't crack it at the top level. They are still good players though.

I'd say that it would be tough to be a great poker theoretician without ever playing, kind of like being a biblical scholar who doesn't believe in God.

However, it's entirely possible to be better at teaching / writing poker than at playing it.

Teaching requires a different type of understanding than playing does.

[tek]

[ QUOTE ]
While theoretically remotely possible, no such animal actually exists. As would be expected.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is pure unadulterated BS!

There is the axiom "Those who can, Do. Those who can't, Teach."

How many history teachers have fought in great battles, made speeches to Congress, negotiated treaties, etc? These teachers can teach history, political science or whatever and help train people who will eventually accomplish these tasks.

How many sports coaches have won big events? How many have trained people who have?

On a side note DS, are you related to Aldous Huxley (author of Brave New World)? From some of your posts in general, I get the idea (possibly erroneous) that if you had the power you would tie everyones' lifechoice selections and opportunities to their IQ.

Valid or off the mark?

[Al Schoonmaker]

I don't know how you can say that. David has at least two WSOP bracelets. He just won the Battle of the Books against Doyle, Phil, T. J., and a couple of others. He beat Phil Ivey and Johnny Chan in the heads up tournament. He beats the hell out of games of $100-$200 and higher.

And you say he is not a player?

Regards,

Al

[reubenf]

[ QUOTE ]
There is the axiom "Those who can, Do. Those who can't, Teach."

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an axiom? Hahahahahahaha.... phew, okay.

[ QUOTE ]
How many history teachers have fought in great battles blah blah blah other non-poker examples

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker is a different beast than those examples.

[tek]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is a different blah blah than those examples.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yada Yada, same principle. You haven't refuted my assertions yet. Do you see why?

Keep trying. Or better yet, put the book down. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Dan Mezick]

I can speak with some authority about coaching. See my profile.

I think a teacher absolutely has to have a verifyable history of winning poker AND be a great communicator and mentor. It's a rare combination.

If you take the set of all winning players, probably only a small subset of these can really teach the game, for the same reasons previously mentioned.

Since long-term winners are probably less than 15% of all players, it is safe to say that finding an effective coach is going to be very difficult.

One aspect is the verifyability of the performance record. A fine cash game player has no verifyable record, while a winning tournament player does.

Formally and informally coached players have done quite well in tournaments, the most immediate and obvious example being Ben Affleck winning the CA State Poker Championship after coaching by Annie Duke. Many more exist and many more are sure to follow.


*** WARNING: SHAMELESS HYPE POTENTIAL *************************
Coaching works. In our poker coaching we have one student that won a seat on the Party Poker Million and another that recently won a seat to the WSOP on PokerStars. (If this is considered shameless self-promotion, please 'stop me before I post again'.... I couldn't resist a little shameless hype within the context of this thread.)
*** END POTENTIALLY SHAMELESS HYPE *************************


One aspect of coaching that is apparent is this: the players that seek coaching already have a winning attitude. By this I mean they really apply themselves.

In some sense players seeking a poker coach are self-selecting for success in the game. These students typically have experienced substantial success in other pursuits. They fully intend to win, and approach poker the same way they approach everything else, and with similiar results.

[ThinkQuick]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say that it would be tough to be a great poker theoretician without ever playing, kind of like being a biblical scholar who doesn't believe in God.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a stupid analogy.
Obviously something as influential as the bible is studied by teeming millions that don't believe. My english teacher was well versed in it to help understand literature sources and analogies. My sociology teacher has become an expert in linking the traditions satanic cults he studies to biblical sources.

So why can't someone understand poker without gambling?

I'll bet you that there are at least a few people in the GAMES research group at the UofAlberta who are developing poker bots and don't play poker.

Now how to draw the correlaton between knowledge and teaching.. i don't know...

[WaimanaloSlim]

I'm not sure about "non players," but I think there are some inferior players who can be better teachers.

Among my poker player friends, there are a couple who offer detached, objective, and good advice when they're not involved in a situation, but if they are, they're not so objective anymore. (This is probably true for all of us. It just depends how much emotional control you have.) They're playing with too much ego. They're capable of becoming better players, they just have to make profitable decisions and not care if it ends up being a loss - always easier to do when it's not your money.