Coaches! Make Yourselves Known!

[Mr. Sparco 2]

If whoever created this thread is looking for coaching in nl and mtt play specifically, JC would be a very good choice.

This made me wonder: when looking for a coach, should you look for someone with a similar playing style to your own, or would it be just as good (or even better?) to have a coach that actually plays a quite different style himself?In my case, I'm a very tight player. Would I benefit more from coaching by a player like JC (by the time I can afford you or any other coach, in 2035 or so ) or would it be better to look for a coach who plays a tight game himself? Or would it hardly matter at all?

[Giggidy 0]

In my case, I'm a very tight player. Would I benefit more from coaching by a player like JC (by the time I can afford you or any other coach, in 2035 or so ) or would it be better to look for a coach who plays a tight game himself? Or would it hardly matter at all?

Good point - I was wondering this about HU coaches, as there's some that win mostly in non-SD pots by being very aggressive (Acid) and others who win mostly at SD (TreMomey) I figured it'd be best to learn a style i'd be more comfy in adopting, but it's an interesting point

[PrtyPSux 0]

Surprised that nobody has discussed this yet.If whoever created this thread is looking for coaching in nl and mtt play specifically, JC would be a very good choice.

ty ...but I think you're underestimating my abilities..if someone wants a good MMA betting coach I think I'm the man.

This made me wonder: when looking for a coach, should you look for someone with a similar playing style to your own, or would it be just as good (or even better?) to have a coach that actually plays a quite different style himself?In my case, I'm a very tight player. Would I benefit more from coaching by a player like JC (by the time I can afford you or any other coach, in 2035 or so ) or would it be better to look for a coach who plays a tight game himself? Or would it hardly matter at all?

IMO, you'll benefit more from someone who can tell you whether you're playing a good/bad TAG style or a good/bad LAG style, not someone who'll tell you exactly how to play. In other words, someone who'll give you options and help you determine which option is correct in certain situations.

[chgocubs99 0]

Some of the stuff in this thread is friggin hilarious

[RDog 0]

Some of the stuff in this thread is friggin hilarious

O rly?

[chgocubs99 0]

O rly?

mmmm hmmmmmmmmmmm

[RDog 0]

mmmm hmmmmmmmmmmm

Wanna compare notes?

[chgocubs99 0]

Wanna compare notes?

muaaaaaahahahaha

[BaseJester 1]

I agree. Getting out of the micros ASAP is what it's all about. Tons of players get stuck there. Once you are out, you progress so fast as a player and the monies roll in.

If there was a gentle way I could say this, I would. But I can't think of any, so I'll be blunt and hope you remember that I love you anyway.You jump at every opportunity to make this huge distinction between, say 50NL, and 400NL. And clearly, they are different. But have some perspective. If you were s7s or DN, those would both be microscopic. You're like an ant calling the gnats small.

[gfdsa146 0]

If there was a gentle way I could say this, I would. But I can't think of any, so I'll be blunt and hope you remember that I love you anyway.You jump at every opportunity to make this huge distinction between, say 50NL, and 400NL. And clearly, they are different. But have some perspective. If you were s7s or DN, those would both be microscopic. You're like an ant calling the gnats small.

Uh-oh.

[ah2388 0]

If there was a gentle way I could say this, I would. But I can't think of any, so I'll be blunt and hope you remember that I love you anyway.You jump at every opportunity to make this huge distinction between, say 50NL, and 400NL. And clearly, they are different. But have some perspective. If you were s7s or DN, those would both be microscopic. You're like an ant calling the gnats small.

good postno sw

[NoSup4U 0]

I've coached a bunch but never for pay, but I'm having a crappy year so I'll coach anyone to clobber up to 1/2nl 6max for $150/hr.Mark

[TB17 0]

I've coached a bunch but never for pay, but I'm having a crappy year so I'll coach anyone to clobber up to 1/2nl 6max for $150/hr.Mark

<3

[gilbertology 0]

As one of Jamie's former students, I should be able to teach anyone to beat up to midstakes O8, Stud8, Razz, 2-7, and Badugi online. I also can teach NLHE MTTs as well as NL 6-Max and FR for what I think is a pretty affordable rate compared to others.PM me if you'd be interested in this type of coaching. Disclaimer: I've only taught a few students before who were friends that I staked so I do not have a wealth of experience in poker coaching, ergo I won't be charging too much.P.S. Go Redskins! and teddy pls change your sig.

[Snamuh 0]

If there was a gentle way I could say this, I would. But I can't think of any, so I'll be blunt and hope you remember that I love you anyway.You jump at every opportunity to make this huge distinction between, say 50NL, and 400NL. And clearly, they are different. But have some perspective. If you were s7s or DN, those would both be microscopic. You're like an ant calling the gnats small.

What's the point of this post? There is a huge distinction between micros and SSNL/MSNL. Seems like you are the one jumping in at every opportunity to argue.

[Snamuh 0]

I'd also like to make it more clear that what I'm saying is indeed true. It is really all about getting out of the micros for a number of reasons:1) Having to withdraw often ends up being a considerable portion of your bankroll, inevitably setting you back in the grind.2) At the micros, rake is often considerable, slowing your profits and your ability to move up.3) At the micros, it's easy to just get stuck for a while, both in bankroll and in development. Once you get past the low level thinking and things begin to click, you think more dynamically and your game becomes so much better.Long story short. It's really easy to get stuck in the micros and have a hard time breaking out for the above reasons. That's why it's so important to do all you can to grind your way out and develop as a player.

[psufans2 1]

I'd also like to make it more clear that what I'm saying is indeed true. It is really all about getting out of the micros for a number of reasons:1) Having to withdraw often ends up being a considerable portion of your bankroll, inevitably setting you back in the grind.2) At the micros, rake is often considerable, slowing your profits and your ability to move up.3) At the micros, it's easy to just get stuck for a while, both in bankroll and in development. Once you get past the low level thinking and things begin to click, you think more dynamically and your game becomes so much better.Long story short. It's really easy to get stuck in the micros and have a hard time breaking out for the above reasons. That's why it's so important to do all you can to grind your way out and develop as a player.

HIIII

[BaseJester 1]

Substitute small stakes (for almost any definition of small) in place of micro and we still have true statements, imho. For instance, even a guy at your level is probably giving back something around 30% of his profit to the house. You're drawing an artificial line at the level of success you have achieved. It's significant to you, of course, because you're you. For anybody else, not so much.

I'd also like to make it more clear that what I'm saying is indeed true. It is really all about getting out of the microsmall stakes for a number of reasons:1) Having to withdraw often ends up being a considerable portion of your bankroll, inevitably setting you back in the grind.2) At the microsmall stakes, rake is often considerable, slowing your profits and your ability to move up.3) At the microsmall stakes, it's easy to just get stuck for a while, both in bankroll and in development. Once you get past the low level thinking and things begin to click, you think more dynamically and your game becomes so much better.Long story short. It's really easy to get stuck in the microsmall stakes and have a hard time breaking out for the above reasons. That's why it's so important to do all you can to grind your way out and develop as a player.

[Naismith 0]

For the record, if anyone wants help in HUNL, feel free to IM me. I won't offer coaching or take payment, but if I'm not busy, I certainly don't mind railing or discussing ideas.Also, go UCF.

[ah2388 0]

For the record, if anyone wants help in HUNL, feel free to IM me. I won't offer coaching or take payment, but if I'm not busy, I certainly don't mind railing or discussing ideas.Also, go MIZZOU.

FYP

[Snamuh 0]

Substitute small stakes (for almost any definition of small) in place of micro and we still have true statements, imho. For instance, even a guy at your level is probably giving back something around 30% of his profit to the house. You're drawing an artificial line at the level of success you have achieved. It's significant to you, of course, because you're you. For anybody else, not so much.

Whatever you say man. Except subbing in small for micro there isn't nearly as true. Rake is a lot more substantial to winrate at 10 NL than 400 NL.You still didn't provide a counter-argument to my first statement which is the biggest. It's one of the primary reasons people get stuck in micros and is one of the most necessary reasons to break out. A SSNL-er can make (depending on how you classify SSNL), a pretty substantial amount of money, to the point where consistently cashing out isn't going to hurt their BR significantly. Whereas a micro-NL player is going to be hurting a lot more from making the same cashouts. This point isn't even arguable. How many uNL players on this forum have been set back due to having to cash out a significant portion of their bankrolls? The fact of the matter is that when you start earning a larger profit, these subtractions are going to have a lot less of an impact.For the final argument, while it is true that you can get stuck at SSNL, the fact that you have to do very little thinking to be overall successful in uNL makes it a lot easier to just get stuck in a mode where you aren't developing. This point is a bit more ambiguous but I feel that it tends to be true and can be seen in the progression of individual players. I was stuck at 50 NL (which I would consider the uppermost micro boundary, 100 NL/200 NL is traditionally considered SSNL) for a fair amount of time, and I think you'll find a lot of micro-stakes players do get stuck at 25 NL and 50 NL before they just get some "aha" moments and progress a lot more quickly. Ask around to verify this argument both with current players that have been at 25 NL/50 NL a long time, and with people that have broken out of micros.

[BaseJester 1]

Whatever you say man. Except subbing in small for micro there isn't nearly as true. Rake is a lot more substantial to winrate at 10 NL than 400 NL.

It's less true, but still true. You're talking about one point in the continuum.Rake is also a lot more substantial at 400 NL than 2000 NL. See what I'm saying? (Edit: I wrote that backwards initially. I hope it was obvious what I meant.)

You still didn't provide a counter-argument to my first statement which is the biggest. It's one of the primary reasons people get stuck in micros and is one of the most necessary reasons to break out. A SSNL-er can make (depending on how you classify SSNL), a pretty substantial amount of money, to the point where consistently cashing out isn't going to hurt their BR significantly. Whereas a micro-NL player is going to be hurting a lot more from making the same cashouts. This point isn't even arguable. How many uNL players on this forum have been set back due to having to cash out a significant portion of their bankrolls? The fact of the matter is that when you start earning a larger profit, these subtractions are going to have a lot less of an impact.

This is all based on what you consider "substantial" and "significant". Most people playing 50 NL have jobs or parents or something. There's no real reason that these players should withdraw to pay bills. If your whole argument is about how a player should manage money to maintain at least a modest lifestyle as a pro in a first world country, then I don't disagree.

For the final argument, while it is true that you can get stuck at SSNL, the fact that you have to do very little thinking to be overall successful in uNL makes it a lot easier to just get stuck in a mode where you aren't developing. This point is a bit more ambiguous but I feel that it tends to be true and can be seen in the progression of individual players. I was stuck at 50 NL (which I would consider the uppermost micro boundary, 100 NL/200 NL is traditionally considered SSNL) . . .

It's not traditional as I would use the word. It's just a dividing line that some people at 2+2 arbitrarily selected just a few years ago.

for a fair amount of time, and I think you'll find a lot of micro-stakes players do get stuck at 25 NL and 50 NL before they just get some "aha" moments and progress a lot more quickly. Ask around to verify this argument both with current players that have been at 25 NL/50 NL a long time, and with people that have broken out of micros.

You might have an "aha" moment that moves you up again. Or do you really think there are no more things to learn?

[Vick12 0]

If there was a gentle way I could say this, I would. But I can't think of any, so I'll be blunt and hope you remember that I love you anyway.You jump at every opportunity to make this huge distinction between, say 50NL, and 400NL. And clearly, they are different. But have some perspective. If you were s7s or DN, those would both be microscopic. You're like an ant calling the gnats small.

Hi...I don't really know you at all and I actually rarely if ever play cash myself.But the differance between 50NL and 400NL is a MASSIVE one online. Maybe DN thinks 400nl is micro level, but I can promise you that Steve doesn't think 400NL is micro and I have personally witnessed Steve playing 2/5 NL Live before. I hardly think Snamuh is "dissing" the micro stakers and elevating himself to a higher plateau. Also...go to Pokerstars and see how they have their cash games arranged. "Medium" is 1/2NL (200NL) to 3/6 (600NL) and "Low" is .25/.50 (50NL) to .50/1 (100NL)...which he already said 50NL was the HIGH END of micros (which Stars has a top end of .10/.25 or 25NL). On Full Tilt "Medium" is .50/1 (100NL) to 2/4 (400NL) and Low is top ended by .25/.50 (50NL). So it's not like he is saying something that is "insulting" to others.Fact is...he is playing 400NL and that level is SUBSTANCIALLY higher level of play than 50NL...it just is.Oh...and many of the coaches in this thread would be great!!!

[Snamuh 0]

It's less true, but still true. You're talking about one point in the continuum.Rake is also a lot more substantial at 2000 NL than 400 NL. See what I'm saying? This is all based on what you consider "substantial" and "significant". Most people playing 50 NL have jobs or parents or something. There's no real reason that these players should withdraw to pay bills. If your whole argument is about how a player should manage money to maintain at least a modest lifestyle as a pro in a first world country, then I don't disagree. It's not traditional as I would use the word. It's just a dividing line that some people at 2+2 arbitrarily selected just a few years ago. You might have an "aha" moment that moves you up again. Or do you really think there are no more things to learn?

I'd argue that rake is less substantial at 2000 NL than at 400 NL because of the way it's capped. At 400 NL, you are losing 5% out of a lot of your medium sized pots, whereas at 2000 NL, you are losing 3.00 (at a 6 max table) every time you see a flop, which is substantially less relative to the stakes you are playing. It's a common fact that the rake is more difficult to overcome at the lower levels.Additionally, the rake on FTP is doubled at .05/.10. Therefore it has a much greater affect on winrate.Where did I say that you are limited to one aha moment? Most good players have had many. I'm merely saying that usually having one at that point in your poker career can take you to the next level.

[chgocubs99 0]

It's less true, but still true. You're talking about one point in the continuum.Rake is also a lot more substantial at 2000 NL than 400 NL. See what I'm saying? This is all based on what you consider "substantial" and "significant". Most people playing 50 NL have jobs or parents or something. There's no real reason that these players should withdraw to pay bills. If your whole argument is about how a player should manage money to maintain at least a modest lifestyle as a pro in a first world country, then I don't disagree. It's not traditional as I would use the word. It's just a dividing line that some people at 2+2 arbitrarily selected just a few years ago. You might have an "aha" moment that moves you up again. Or do you really think there are no more things to learn?

I'm not trying to be a douche here, but do you really, truly know what you are talking about or are you just making things up to fit your argument? How many hands have you logged at lower levels? At higher levels? Have you played 400NL? How many hands? Do you understand rake structures? It does not appear that you do. I would spend less time arguing and more time listening to people who have played, taught and seen hundreds of thousands of hands and have years of experience at many levels, instead of throwing out psuedo counter agruments that really aren't saying anything much at all, like pretty much everything you said in the above quoted post. The only actual factual argument you made was an incorrect statement about rake at different levels.