Coaching discussion on Myth - Page 3

On July 18 2010 10:20 Stygg wrote: Show nested quote + On July 18 2010 09:28 Maynard! wrote: I hate to say it but 1/2 is a stake that most people would be a little embarrassed to log 100k hands at. disagree with this. some players are happy playing 1/2 for years, knowing that the money they will win here is way above what they could realistically make at most other jobs. not everyone wants to climb the ladder to high stakes and deal with the stress it will always eventually bring when you have that killer downswing. i've played more than 100k hands at 1/2 in 2010 alone, i dont feel the slightest bit embarrassed about this and if i run bad at 2/4 (my current limit) i will have absolutely no problem moving down to reorganize my shit

Right. I more mean someone who wants to be classified as a top pro.

A couple of thoughts.

I think there is an inherent conflict with coaching where the coach feels that his time spent on teaching could have been spent on poker so he charges his approximate hourly. This makes for some very expensive lessons for the student since he is obviously making a lot less than that. This is something that bugged me when I gave lessons, because I felt that the amount I was charging was a lot to the students and combined with the fact that sometimes the sessions were pretty bad (in terms of me not doing a good job conveying my thoughts in English or not having any interesting hands come up) made me feel bad about myself as well. That's why right now I feel that coaching shouldn't be considered as time that could have been spent playing and the rates should be a lot lower than what you're making. It also should be a couple lessons at the very least to get anything out of it.

I also came to realize that there are people who don't like to put the effort themselves so they think they can buy progress by getting some lessons. Unfortunately if coaching is to help anyone become a very good player the truth is they would have become very good on their own sooner or later. If not then there's thin chance they're gonna make anything happen for themselves no matter how many hours they put in with the coach.

This situation I believe is even worse, because Myth is not even charging what he's making - it's actually a lot, lot more.

On July 18 2010 09:28 Maynard! wrote: Now let me start off by saying that you don't have to be a good player or have good online results to justify being a coach. Some of the best coaches may not be the best players due to tilt issues etc.

I disagree with this. I think that's the case an extremely low percentage of the time (someone like Isildur1 might come to mind if he offered lessons), almost always it's just excuse making (however plausible they might sound).

On July 18 2010 10:09 Stygg wrote: i think the most important thing is to listen to what his students have to say, if they're happy with his coaching abilities I think that should more or less be the end of the discussion.

Hmm... The problem I have with this statement is that people once they buy/invest in something they tend to rationalize their choice whatever way they can (Cialdini writes about this in his classic book 'Influence'). It's particularly easy when the coach is very intelligent and eloquent.

You might say it's fair game - taking advantage of someone's ignorance and that it's similar to poker where you keep playing people who overestimate their skill. But I don't believe it's like poker at all.

I personally have nothing against Myth, but I'm opposed to his coaching business and his work for CR. I feel his reputation is self-perpetuated and the thing that should have started the interest in his lessons/videos - the skill at the tables, is in all likelihood missing right now.

I wouldn't have a problem with it if he was a mindset coach like Tommy Angelo. But Myth is a person who almost exclusively talks about technical aspects of the game - things like board textures, cbetting frequencies etc. And that coming from a player who is getting 350$/h for his advice, while he's having difficulty beating 1/2 online I find quite irritating.

Show nested quote + On July 18 2010 09:28 Maynard! wrote: Now let me start off by saying that you don't have to be a good player or have good online results to justify being a coach. Some of the best coaches may not be the best players due to tilt issues etc. I disagree with this. I think that's the case an extremely low percentage of the time (someone like Isildur1 might come to mind if he offered lessons), almost always it's just excuse making (however plausible they might sound).

I was mainly thinking of people like d-zoo who simply doesn't seem to like playing anymore but seems to have a strong track record of good players saying hes a good coach. He has good results but they are basically from hands that a normal grinder would put in in a day. He has coached Jamie217 who is a very strong player and who has said d-zoo helped his game out a lot. Others like you mentioned, tommy angelo. Where are his results? He provides very good coaching (from what I imagine from his videos). I'm sure there are also many more. I think we can also draw parallels to sporting where a lot of the coaches/trainers were simply not top in their game but their philosophies and coaching were top notch.

A coach can provide other intangibles and insight that aren't shown through PTR. I'm not saying thats the case here, I'm just saying it happens and if myth can get some top players to say they received extensive lessons from him and benefited a lot it'd be solid indication of coaching ability.

Tomson summed up my thoughts pretty well on this subject.

I dont get why some people here want so bad to make Myth look bad. I mean, open a thread about it?
So what if he charges $350/hr and has a shitty PTR. If people want to pay him and they dont feel they are being scammed, so what?
Most people are happy with Myth's lessons, it's working for both sides. What's the problem?
Just let the guy be happy, it's his life and he is not hurting anybody.

If Nazgul didn't asked us to behave I would say some crazy shit to the Myth haters, but since he asked I'm just gonna tell you to mind your own business and fuck yourselves.

edit: just to make it clear, I'm not in favor of losing players teaching, I think it's quite wrong. what I mean is if he is teaching in a way that people don't feel they are being scammed or something, why should we care so much? It's not like he is stealing anybody's students.

On July 18 2010 10:14 Raidern wrote: Show nested quote + On July 18 2010 09:08 dandydolly wrote: [. I mean what kind of pro player gets staked in tournaments both live and online, and also in live cashgames(source: his blog on lp), that is really unheard for a "PRO" especially someone as famous for his skill as myth. He might come up with a counter argument saying that he is getting staked only temporarily due to being busto or some what, but the truth is any good player can make 150k from like a 50$ deposit online in a year even I did it. Why couldnt he just grind out half a year and have 75k or more to back him self. I dont know about other highstakes players but I find his hand discussion to be very much wrong and often perceive it as a level. wtf there are many many maaany people known for being sick players who get staked at live tournaments. i wont name anyone because it would be unethical, but ask any staker and they will name a few

Im not jumping on anyones side here, but how many are there that are almost 100% staked in all games they play?

You seem to be misinterpreting what he said, everyone knows there are tons of players who share action in big tournaments to reduce the variance, getting staked in all games seems totally different though.

On July 18 2010 10:14 Raidern wrote: Show nested quote + On July 18 2010 09:08 dandydolly wrote: [. I mean what kind of pro player gets staked in tournaments both live and online, and also in live cashgames(source: his blog on lp), that is really unheard for a "PRO" especially someone as famous for his skill as myth. He might come up with a counter argument saying that he is getting staked only temporarily due to being busto or some what, but the truth is any good player can make 150k from like a 50$ deposit online in a year even I did it. Why couldnt he just grind out half a year and have 75k or more to back him self. I dont know about other highstakes players but I find his hand discussion to be very much wrong and often perceive it as a level. wtf there are many many maaany people known for being sick players who get staked at live tournaments. i wont name anyone because it would be unethical, but ask any staker and they will name a few

ur missing the point

1. sick players dont get stakes they atmost sell off at premiums
2. myth isnt just getting staked in big 25k tournaments he is getting stkaed for the 1k the live 10/20 the online scoops and shit. all things a pro can afford

I always thought myth is a very smart guy because he is one of the few people here that understands diversifying his portfolio and building assets.

I think the haters are just like "I think I'm a better poker player than myth, how the fuck is he making all this side money". It's just jealousy imo. A lot of poker players don't understand that there are better ways to make money than just loading up virtual tables and making money. Knowing how to network is worth a shitload (partying with Peachy etc... is worth money due to connections you can make. Plus the leverage you can use from staking). Building a brand around your name is money.

Think about it. If you know myth, and you have a good business idea, he can talk to Taylor Caby and get things rolling. Myth has a way better understanding of how the world works then anyone who calls themselves a grinder.

If you guys read some psychology books such as Freakonomics/Superfreakomics you'd know that it's not about the value of the goods but the perceived value of your goods. We've all paid for bottled water right? Bottled water is just tap water in some cases. Bottled water tastes better depending on the brand name on the bottle. Similarly myth can charge whatever the hell he wants for his coaching. In fact, charging less for his coaching might devalue his brand.

I say leave the man alone.

I had Myth coach for a couple hours at different points, and I thought he pointed out two key leaks I had, which obv more than likely made up for the few hundred I spent on lessons within a few thousand hands. And PTR says I'm a winning player.

I'd recommend myth as a coach and have no qualms about it.

On July 18 2010 10:49 tomson wrote: Show nested quote + On July 18 2010 10:09 Stygg wrote: i think the most important thing is to listen to what his students have to say, if they're happy with his coaching abilities I think that should more or less be the end of the discussion. Hmm... The problem I have with this statement is that people once they buy/invest in something they tend to rationalize their choice whatever way they can (Cialdini writes about this in his classic book 'Influence'). It's particularly easy when the coach is very intelligent and eloquent. You might say it's fair game - taking advantage of someone's ignorance and that it's similar to poker where you keep playing people who overestimate their skill. But I don't believe it's like poker at all.

you def have a point about ppl not wanting to admit to themselves if they've done a "bad purchase" but in that case, you can say that about any situation where someone gets trained/coached. if player X says "i def learned a lot from Myth" we cant automatically write it off as a rationalization either just because there's a chance player X just simply doesn't know better. that said, i'm sure many times it's like what you described, and it would be very interesting to see Myth's students' graphs in a before/after situation. it would reveal a bit more.

but in the end we have to take ppl's words at face value, everything else is speculation on our part. if player X gives thumbs up to Myth, we're forced to take that into account. we can't automatically assume Myth is running them over with intelligence and eloquence, hypnotizing them into believing he's a good coach. that's giving too little cred to ppl in general.

On July 18 2010 11:31 tutz_x wrote: I dont get why some people here want so bad to make Myth look bad. I mean, open a thread about it? So what if he charges $350/hr and has a shitty PTR. If people want to pay him and they dont feel they are being scammed, so what? Most people are happy with Myth's lessons, it's working for both sides. What's the problem? Just let the guy be happy, it's his life and he is not hurting anybody. If Nazgul didn't asked us to behave I would say some crazy shit to the Myth haters, but since he asked I'm just gonna tell you to mind your own business and fuck yourselves. edit: just to make it clear, I'm not in favor of losing players teaching, I think it's quite wrong. what I mean is if he is teaching in a way that people don't feel they are being scammed or something, why should we care so much? It's not like he is stealing anybody's students.

He frequently offers a product to the poker community just as hold em manager, pokertracker, etc. do. We discuss holdem manager, pokertracker, pokersites, pokertraining sites, etc all the time. Its just that his product is his own personal services so comments have to be based on skill, ability, or coaching prowess. As long as people talk about the product specifically and things related to the product and not bash/insult the person I think this is fine.

It would be bad form for LP to take a stance that the quality of a member's products cannot be discussed. It would look very unethical.

And when it comes to staking, a lot of people like to reduce variance..I know when I played a 1.5k WSOP NLHE event last year I could easily afford the BI from other poker...but am nit enough where I still sold 50% of myself. B/c I'm a huge nit. If your a pro and make 100k a year but live a lavish lifestyle, or saving to buy a house, etc, etc, then you might want to reduce variance by staking too, especially if you get a good long-term deal.

On July 18 2010 11:58 royalsu wrote: I always thought myth is a very smart guy because he is one of the few people here that understands diversifying his portfolio and building assets. I think the haters are just like "I think I'm a better poker player than myth, how the fuck is he making all this side money". It's just jealousy imo. A lot of poker players don't understand that there are better ways to make money than just loading up virtual tables and making money. Knowing how to network is worth a shitload (partying with Peachy etc... is worth money due to connections you can make. Plus the leverage you can use from staking). Building a brand around your name is money. Think about it. If you know myth, and you have a good business idea, he can talk to Taylor Caby and get things rolling. Myth has a way better understanding of how the world works then anyone who calls themselves a grinder. If you guys read some psychology books such as Freakonomics/Superfreakomics you'd know that it's not about the value of the goods but the perceived value of your goods. We've all paid for bottled water right? Bottled water is just tap water in some cases. Bottled water tastes better depending on the brand name on the bottle. Similarly myth can charge whatever the hell he wants for his coaching. In fact, charging less for his coaching might devalue his brand. I say leave the man alone.

That's true but dumb. What the hell does that have to do with anything? Daut in all probability has better BJJ then me, should that be the deciding factor if I considered getting coaching from him?

Basically your point seems to be that if people thinks that myth is good (Which they probably wouldn't do to the same extent if it was well known that he's a halvway decent 1/2-grinder) he's worth the price, which is just weird.

In other news Myth seems like a much cooler person then the average poker player, but I don't think he's coaching is worth it considering how many people with much better results as far as online poker goes coaches for the same/cheaper.

On July 18 2010 12:03 JizzleSmitts wrote: And when it comes to staking, a lot of people like to reduce variance..I know when I played a 1.5k WSOP NLHE event last year I could easily afford the BI from other poker...but am nit enough where I still sold 50% of myself. B/c I'm a huge nit. If your a pro and make 100k a year but live a lavish lifestyle, or saving to buy a house, etc, etc, then you might want to reduce variance by staking too, especially if you get a good long-term deal.

Yes agreed. Very good players sell percentages of tournaments of themselves all the time. I've bought pieces off of players I consider to be very good. One of them who is probably the best poker player who posts here. This happens all the time. ~10k is a lot of money to almost anyone.

On July 18 2010 11:58 royalsu wrote: I always thought myth is a very smart guy because he is one of the few people here that understands diversifying his portfolio and building assets. I think the haters are just like "I think I'm a better poker player than myth, how the fuck is he making all this side money". It's just jealousy imo. A lot of poker players don't understand that there are better ways to make money than just loading up virtual tables and making money. Knowing how to network is worth a shitload (partying with Peachy etc... is worth money due to connections you can make. Plus the leverage you can use from staking). Building a brand around your name is money. Think about it. If you know myth, and you have a good business idea, he can talk to Taylor Caby and get things rolling. Myth has a way better understanding of how the world works then anyone who calls themselves a grinder. If you guys read some psychology books such as Freakonomics/Superfreakomics you'd know that it's not about the value of the goods but the perceived value of your goods. We've all paid for bottled water right? Bottled water is just tap water in some cases. Bottled water tastes better depending on the brand name on the bottle. Similarly myth can charge whatever the hell he wants for his coaching. In fact, charging less for his coaching might devalue his brand. I say leave the man alone.

all good points but too irrelevant when we're discussing his coaching in particular. just because Myth "understands how the world works" doesn't automatically set him free, the so called haters i think have a valid point in raising these questions. we're discussing his coaching skills in online poker, not his knowledge of the world or networking skills.

i don't know why you guys are defending him.

hes teaching a game he cannot beat and charges outrageous prices.

he's like yenmaster (cr instructor) who also hand picks a winning video to make commentary on

he misrepresented himself as a WINNING player. thus people staking him. this is unethical and no difference of a scammer, manipulator

On July 18 2010 11:32 byrnesam wrote: Im not jumping on anyones side here, but how many are there that are almost 100% staked in all games they play? You seem to be misinterpreting what he said, everyone knows there are tons of players who share action in big tournaments to reduce the variance, getting staked in all games seems totally different though.

No he is entirely right in that you will see known pros in lots of games being staked. Be it cash be it tournaments. Be it tournaments online and tournaments live etc. Staking is huge amongst poker players of any level.

On July 18 2010 11:31 tutz_x wrote: edit: just to make it clear, I'm not in favor of losing players teaching, I think it's quite wrong. what I mean is if he is teaching in a way that people don't feel they are being scammed or something, why should we care so much? It's not like he is stealing anybody's students.

So you're opposed to losing players giving lessons, UNLESS their customers are satisfied.

Let me ask you this - what are your thoughts on selling placebo pills to ill people? Fair game?

On July 18 2010 12:15 tomson wrote: Show nested quote + On July 18 2010 11:31 tutz_x wrote: edit: just to make it clear, I'm not in favor of losing players teaching, I think it's quite wrong. what I mean is if he is teaching in a way that people don't feel they are being scammed or something, why should we care so much? It's not like he is stealing anybody's students. So you're opposed to losing players giving lessons, UNLESS their customers are satisfied. Let me ask you this - what are your thoughts on selling placebo pills to ill people? Fair game?

common