Thoughts on coaching rates/quality

[SlowHabit]

I briefly coached and it was an exciting feeling to see your students improve dramatically and start thinking different about the game.

From what I noticed, my students tended to play the "standard" 2+2 style and went on autopilot without giving much though to mood, hand ranges, and image.

Anyway, as others have mentioned, as a coach, it's stupid if you do it solely for the money. It's such a grind, especially when you can make the same amount or more playing. You have to enjoy it. You have to want to help in order to notice the smallest detail in his game so you can offer your help.

Personally, I would feel disgusted if I know I didn't try my best to help and still collect money. Thus, for students looking for poker coaches, make sure they enjoy teaching and obviously, they are good at it. Don't try to save a few bucks here and there and get bad ones. It will cost you more in the long run.

PS. I no longer accept students.

[BobboFitos]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't know for a fact that this is the case, but I suspect that most coaching consists of the coach watching the student play for a while, then telling him what he did wrong, or telling him what to do for the rest of the session. This seems like a huge waste of the student's time to me, so I recommend against that approach when a new student suggests it. IMO a video is a far more time/cost-efficient way to be sweated, for obvious reasons.

Also, most students would benefit more from thinking about where they think they have problems, and bringing their coach prepared questions for an hour, as opposed to being sweated. The reason this doesn't happen more (if I'm right about it being the norm) is that a lot of students either don't know what will help them most, or don't care to put in the greater amount of work (and have less fun) instead of simply playing while a better player watches. Another obvious reason is that it's easy money for the coaches, so they may not object, even if they know it's not the student's best value.


[/ QUOTE ]
totally agree

[Zeestein]

fwiw I don't see how it could be argued that unless you're massively overrolled that your CR should be > your PR, variance-free 300/hr is kinda different to 400/hr give or take 2k.

[ALReturnsLOL]

One thing that I think is overlooked in general is when people count their hourly rates for playing they often overlook the amount of upkeep and studying they have to do to remain competitive winners. To remain a consistently high winner I imagine you (msnl winners) have to study/talk about hands browse 2p2 a decent amount. Unfortunately all that is overlooked when you count your hourly.

[soah]

[ QUOTE ]
One thing that I think is overlooked in general is when people count their hourly rates for playing they often overlook the amount of upkeep and studying they have to do to remain competitive winners. To remain a consistently high winner I imagine you (msnl winners) have to study/talk about hands browse 2p2 a decent amount. Unfortunately all that is overlooked when you count your hourly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't see what that has to do at all with this topic, since you're going to be doing that stuff regardless of whether you're coaching.

And if you want to go that route, coaches have to spend quite a bit of time off the clock setting up lessons, fielding questions from potential future students, and other stuff of that nature.

[KeanuReaver]

i think a lot of it is also who you're gearing your coaching for

i've done a little bit of coaching and i gear it towards small stakes players around the NL100 range, so i don't charge much. im going to school to be a teacher anyway, so im just doing it cause i enjoy it

[NoahSD]

Al,
If you play somewhat regularly (like 1k+ hands most weeks), I don't think you need to study much to keep at the level you're at.

Cero,
Your post assumes that a student will realize his/her coach sucks. I think a lot wouldn't realize.

Also, I strongly disagree with the idea that a low stakes player will benefit greatly from coaching from any MSNL winners. Lots of MSNL winners suck really bad, and I doubt they coach a ton better than they play.

[Albert Moulton]

Ideally, you would want to look at the average hourly winrate for playing poker from all of the coach's students before and after their coaching sessions.

Then the coach with the highest level of improvement in winrates for their students should be the highest paid. And the amount of their payment would be in relation to the level and amount of the games in which their students are doing better.

If the coach doesn't play regularly (for whatever reason), but his students do much better than those of other coaches, then the fact that the coach doesn't play would be irrelevant.

It might do well for coaches to list before and after win rates (or hourly rates for live play) for their students. To avoid fraudulent advertising, online players could check databases to confirm or deny those students' win rates.

[WiltOnTilt]

Just wanted to add that those of you looking for prospective coaches should demand professionalism from the person you're hiring. At the first sign of them being flakey or disinterested in you personally succeeding, it's time to move on.

One of the biggest things I felt like I got from krantz when he coached me is his general desire that I do well... and that's something I try to carry over to my students. I think they would all agree that the time and effort I spend for them "off the clock" is rarely matched.

WoT

[Sponger.]

People have asked me to coach, but then I realized that my ideas aren't worth much compared to what my time is worth. I just think there are too many guys out there who just charge a ridiculous rate because they are making that much playing poker, but they probably suck as coaches.