My Coaching - Page 3

On September 06 2010 07:07 bigredhoss wrote: Show nested quote + On September 06 2010 06:50 Steal City wrote:   On September 06 2010 06:42 morph1 wrote: [ ] ptr is 100% accurate [x] myth is beating 3/6 on Diagonals PTR (just look at Diagonals's Results by Game Stake, and use simple math) [ ] myth has a big sample [?] myth is a good coach (I guess on this one, only his students can answer) who gives a fuck anyway...? [x] PTR is incredibly accurate and even a sample of 100k+ hands which are randomly selected will do the justice so it wouldn't matter if PTR only tracked 50% of hands as long as it doesn't have a bias when tracking hands which is doesn't [x] he is losing at 1/2 and 2/4, statistically speaking he is losing at the limits he plays, of which 3/6 is the highest [x] myth has a big enough sample to statistically prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is losing at the stakes he coaches i just glanced at Diagonals ptr but it looks like overall he's up money at 3/6 and under...?

u seem to not understand my sentence. It doesn't make sense for him to be a winning 3/6 player but a losing 1/2 and 2/4 player no... the statistical proof I did showing that he has a losing track record was according to all his PTR tracked hands of which there are 100K+... this shows that he has a losing sample which is not losing merely because of volatility. Since he is a losing player at the amalgamated limits and 3/6 is the highest of those limits it would suggest that if he played 100k hands of 3/6 he would likely be losing unless he plays 3/6 differently then he plays 1/2 and 2/4 and so much better that it even overshadows the fact that 3/6 is harder to beat

by your logic bigred, he should be allowed to teach 3/6 but not 1/2 or 2/4

Someone can do an independent statistical analysis of the various limits and see what the % chance that volatility has caused him to have a winning 3/6 sample and a losing 1/2 and 2/4 sample.

What i did was statistical analysis based on his entire sample of which 3/6 was the highest showing that, unless he plays 3/6 much much better than he plays 1/2 and 2/4 he is a losing 3/6 player with a biased sample.

On September 06 2010 08:15 Steal City wrote: Show nested quote + On September 06 2010 07:07 bigredhoss wrote:   On September 06 2010 06:50 Steal City wrote:   On September 06 2010 06:42 morph1 wrote: [ ] ptr is 100% accurate [x] myth is beating 3/6 on Diagonals PTR (just look at Diagonals's Results by Game Stake, and use simple math) [ ] myth has a big sample [?] myth is a good coach (I guess on this one, only his students can answer) who gives a fuck anyway...? [x] PTR is incredibly accurate and even a sample of 100k+ hands which are randomly selected will do the justice so it wouldn't matter if PTR only tracked 50% of hands as long as it doesn't have a bias when tracking hands which is doesn't [x] he is losing at 1/2 and 2/4, statistically speaking he is losing at the limits he plays, of which 3/6 is the highest [x] myth has a big enough sample to statistically prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is losing at the stakes he coaches i just glanced at Diagonals ptr but it looks like overall he's up money at 3/6 and under...? u seem to not understand my sentence. It doesn't make sense for him to be a winning 3/6 player but a losing 1/2 and 2/4 player no... the statistical proof I did showing that he has a losing track record was according to all his PTR tracked hands of which there are 100K+... this shows that he has a losing sample which is not losing merely because of volatility. Since he is a losing player at the amalgamated limits and 3/6 is the highest of those limits it would suggest that if he played 100k hands of 3/6 he would likely be losing unless he plays 3/6 differently then he plays 1/2 and 2/4 and so much better that it even overshadows the fact that 3/6 is harder to beat

samplesize though

like my graph from stars, am i a losing or winning nl100 player? (i play profitably on 2/4 on other networks now)



myth just gonna have to put down volume if hes gonna want to try and prove it, if he dosnt care or his students dosnt care its nothing more to discuss imo. if he thinks he is good enough to coach at 3/6 and his students thinks so to and they are aware of all the facts, whats the problemoooooo?

On September 06 2010 08:15 Steal City wrote: Show nested quote + On September 06 2010 07:07 bigredhoss wrote:   On September 06 2010 06:50 Steal City wrote:   On September 06 2010 06:42 morph1 wrote: [ ] ptr is 100% accurate [x] myth is beating 3/6 on Diagonals PTR (just look at Diagonals's Results by Game Stake, and use simple math) [ ] myth has a big sample [?] myth is a good coach (I guess on this one, only his students can answer) who gives a fuck anyway...? [x] PTR is incredibly accurate and even a sample of 100k+ hands which are randomly selected will do the justice so it wouldn't matter if PTR only tracked 50% of hands as long as it doesn't have a bias when tracking hands which is doesn't [x] he is losing at 1/2 and 2/4, statistically speaking he is losing at the limits he plays, of which 3/6 is the highest [x] myth has a big enough sample to statistically prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is losing at the stakes he coaches i just glanced at Diagonals ptr but it looks like overall he's up money at 3/6 and under...? u seem to not understand my sentence. It doesn't make sense for him to be a winning 3/6 player but a losing 1/2 and 2/4 player no... the statistical proof I did showing that he has a losing track record was according to all his PTR tracked hands of which there are 100K+... this shows that he has a losing sample which is not losing merely because of volatility. Since he is a losing player at the amalgamated limits and 3/6 is the highest of those limits it would suggest that if he played 100k hands of 3/6 he would likely be losing unless he plays 3/6 differently then he plays 1/2 and 2/4 and so much better that it even overshadows the fact that 3/6 is harder to beat

this doesn't make sense to me.

if you look at the "almagamation" of limits 3/6 and under on his PTR he is up overall. it sounds like you're saying the opposite. what am i not understanding?

crazy graph, can you give us the graph in BBs? is it just 100nl in which case ur running 2bb/100 if i calculated it right under EV. Also what you are doing is the reverse of the survivorship bias... but the same princible (just we're talking about non survivors in a way)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias


The statistical analysis provided the chance that it was something like 1/500 that he was a winning player at those limits. That means 1 out of every 500 winning players players will be able to provide such a sample. More over, if we look for it in our records and we've played say 2 million hands we can, provide what, 20/500 chance a graph like his. The chance that he was a solid winner was even less et cetera. You did not post a regular graph (ie we are only looking at an extreme)... where still you are basically a breakeven player (certainly with rake back)

to put it in a simpler way, there's a reason why in the scientific method you make the hypothesis before you do the testing

and the people who do the testing and then make up the hypothesis are victims to the "correlation does not imply causality" thing

anyway, because this is a burried blog post, all further posts should be here

http://www.liquidpoker.net/poker-foru...last/Coaching_discussion_on_Myth.html

On September 06 2010 08:45 Steal City wrote: crazy graph, can you give us the graph in BBs? is it just 100nl in which case ur running 2bb/100 if i calculated it right under EV. Also what you are doing is the reverse of the survivorship bias... but the same princible (just we're talking about non survivors in a way) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias The statistical analysis provided the chance that it was something like 1/500 that he was a winning player at those limits. That means 1 out of every 500 winning players players will be able to provide such a sample. More over, if we look for it in our records and we've played say 2 million hands we can, provide what, 20/500 chance a graph like his. The chance that he was a solid winner was even less et cetera. You did not post a regular graph (ie we are only looking at an extreme)... where still you are basically a breakeven player (certainly with rake back)

its like 100k hands nl50
450k hands nl100 and rest is some 25nl, mostly 200nl like 100k hands, and some nl400

bb graph:
+ Show Spoiler +

so its actually more buy ins then if it was strictly 16k$ on 100nl under EV

ahhh -$ after 600,000 hands i feel faint~

On September 06 2010 08:55 Perisie wrote: ahhh -$ after 600,000 hands i feel faint~

ist all good, up little more then 30k$ this summer since i left stars

enough about the graph though, back to myth



also

On September 06 2010 08:53 Steal City wrote: to respond to longple in myth's blog, you are working with a sample size of maybe 10s of thousands of players who use hold em manager or PT3 or w/e, they all play many many many

i dont understand anything from this can u reformulate, or reword or w/e the english word for explaining with other words is

stop making fun of 25nl players lol

Don't think anyone has mentioned the fact that he dropped 15k in 1 day (tilting?) playing 10/20. If not for this he would have a slightly positive account. Still doesn't account for the 1/2 or 2/4 samples.. but it wouldn't look quite as bad. Also because he is a winner over 22k hands at 3/6 and a loser at 1/2 over 27k that clearly isn't enough information to determine if he is a winning player at either limit. Highly subjective to variance obviously.

On the screenshot you posted here donald http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/5449/2010sofar.jpg It shows you being a LOSING PLAYER at .50/1 over 33k hands and a loser at 50nl over 14k. Now this is obviously just variance because your crushing highstakes over even larger samples. All I am saying is he probably doesn't have enough hands to definitively show if he is a winner or loser.

being an espectator in this kind of things is totally new to me :D, i like it...

im surprised myth cant beat midstakes, probably due to his game deteriorating for mostly playing live

Wobbly changed into a totally different person, he was like the kindest kid ever and then turned into somebody as abrasive as myself but just like me he usually speaks the truth in a very ineffective way.

i think wobbly should go back to posting pics of him and his gf, it was more fun back then

On September 06 2010 05:12 KeyleK_uk wrote: Steal city you make some decent points, but don't just say the same thing again.... - If a 25 NL player tried to teach someone who knew enough to beat 100NL or w/e it would be pretty clear to see that he's bullshitting in no time at all, come on Steal you have half a brain you can see by the way Myth talks and thinks about poker that he's not a 25 NL player. - Also, Neilly implements his exact programme? How's he going to do that... If he word for word says the same things as Myth then thats fine... But obviously he's not going to be able to. As I said you made some reasonable points but the last 2 paragraphs are just either plain wrong or with the latter just OT

I can go record in saying i'll take bets on neilly to beat myth in HU or Ring lol.

Also steal is pretty spot on about everything

On September 06 2010 07:07 bigredhoss wrote: Show nested quote + On September 06 2010 06:50 Steal City wrote:   On September 06 2010 06:42 morph1 wrote: [ ] ptr is 100% accurate [x] myth is beating 3/6 on Diagonals PTR (just look at Diagonals's Results by Game Stake, and use simple math) [ ] myth has a big sample [?] myth is a good coach (I guess on this one, only his students can answer) who gives a fuck anyway...? [x] PTR is incredibly accurate and even a sample of 100k+ hands which are randomly selected will do the justice so it wouldn't matter if PTR only tracked 50% of hands as long as it doesn't have a bias when tracking hands which is doesn't [x] he is losing at 1/2 and 2/4, statistically speaking he is losing at the limits he plays, of which 3/6 is the highest [x] myth has a big enough sample to statistically prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is losing at the stakes he coaches i just glanced at Diagonals ptr but it looks like overall he's up money at 3/6 and under...?

and im a winner at 50/100

On September 06 2010 12:12 Baal wrote: Wobbly changed into a totally different person, he was like the kindest kid ever and then turned into somebody as abrasive as myself but just like me he usually speaks the truth in a very ineffective way.

poker world changes people, cant be a pussy in a world this harsh

On September 06 2010 13:40 wobbly_au wrote: Show nested quote + On September 06 2010 12:12 Baal wrote: Wobbly changed into a totally different person, he was like the kindest kid ever and then turned into somebody as abrasive as myself but just like me he usually speaks the truth in a very ineffective way. poker world changes people, cant be a pussy in a world this harsh

toughguy huh?

Steal City makes one very significant point in his posts. Myth correct me if I'm wrong on this since I'm too lazy to backtrack and source to some of the old original threads where you posted requirements for potential students.

Facts:
1. Myth accepts students that generally play a minimum of 1/2.
2. These students are either slight losers, break-even, or maybe the slightest of winners.
3. Students in the profit-sharing program receive one lesson per month, or was it two? I don't recall.
4. The students Myth selects are competent poker players to begin with.
5. These students selected want to learn and get better at poker. The desire to learn and get better is shown in their seeking of coaching and interest in others points of view on the game.


Myth I'll say bluntly what I think. I think the long-term students you end up selecting would probably succeed with or without your help. I think that if you take a break-even player online at 1/2 or 2/4 and have them play at a pace of 500k hands a year that at some point during that 500k hand stretch they will likely run hot or run ice cold. If they run ice cold you don't make any money. If however they run hot then you net your 10k in profit sharing regardless of whether they actually benefited from your coaching or not. Arranging such a long-term situation is massively beneficial for you rather than for the student. Whether your coaching helps or not if you have players that are dedicated to learning and getting better they will very likely see improvement over the course of a year especially if they are putting in solid and consistent volume on the tables.

So what are the main reasons your students sometimes succeed at achieving their goals in poker?

A) The fact that they receive advice on MSN & 2 hours of coaching sessions per month

OR

B) The fact that these players put in significant volume online, are working hard to improve at poker on a consistent basis, care about improving and seeking others points of view, are generally competent poker players to begin with, and lastly that over a length of time like 1-2 years most players will improve if they're doing all of the things previously mentioned.

I'm not saying that your coaching isn't helpful or beneficial. However I do think the deck is stacked in your favour for a payoff. The students are likely to succeed on the merits of their own efforts to improve their game and get better at poker. Using such a long-time frame virtually guarantees these players will improve if they continue to try and do so for the full length of time. Myth you essentially stand to benefit from people becoming your students whether your coaching was valuable or not.

The only fix for this situation would be to reduce the term of these profit-sharing contracts. Give the students one lesson a week for 2 months. Same profit line of up to 10k within the two month period. If you can help these people achieve these results in such a short term you've likely helped them a lot. If you're taking 10k from people over the course of a year it's less likely that your coaching was the reason for their success. Running hot variance or simple hard work on the students part are far larger contributing factors when you stretch out the time like that.

On September 06 2010 13:40 wobbly_au wrote: Show nested quote + On September 06 2010 12:12 Baal wrote: Wobbly changed into a totally different person, he was like the kindest kid ever and then turned into somebody as abrasive as myself but just like me he usually speaks the truth in a very ineffective way. poker world changes people, cant be a pussy in a world this harsh

B.S. son. I know crap about poker, but I know that two of the best players in the world are Phil Ivey and Tom Dwan. Neither of them is a douche like you. Your peers on here play a lot of poker. Most of them are not douches like you. Poker world does not change people, you just chose to change yourself. Don't blame your own choices on extraneous factors, you are a bastard because you chose to be one.