Pete Clarke is out to destroy low stakes.
The world's best poker theoretician, Pete Clarke, has undertaken a public challenge to play 400k NL100 R&C hands on GGpoker. Will we eventually see someone achieving a winrate above 25bb/100 over a large sample?
I think it's possible to beat 100NL on GG by 2bb/100 pre-rb if your objective is quality over quantity.
Every human being that tries to be top 1 LB everyday will inevitably have a lower winrate. By forcing yourself to play you start to make mistakes.
If every LB grinder played smaller sessions i believe their winrate would be higher. I guess that's what he is trying to do.
I think he can beat 100NL. The point is: can he beat 1k NL and up? How about 5k NL? If his thought proccess is so good like he says it is, I think he should demonstrate it by playing against richer people.
420 is correct. Poker is a game and we keep score with chips. Most games have to be played with skill to beat opponents, poker is pretty much the only game that can be played GTO perfect and still lose to a clueless donk.
The lower the limit the harder it is to beat the rake. Move up to higher limits or move on and stop boring us with the nitastic blather over microstakes.
how can you possibly say he's scamming people and/or is his content overpriced? you know how many coaches are charging $500 an hour to do hand reviews/put in no prep. Also the sheer number of hours he must have put in to create these comprehensive courses? And not to mention the constant and FREE content he puts out on youtube.
I often refer people over to his content because it's simply some of the best out there imo. And even though i play higher than him, i VERY regularly learn a bunch of conc
Do you actually believe that? People criticising you doesn't inherently mean you are "doing something right" and the idea that it does is total nonsense
I think it's pretty clear that Pete's private coaching services are overpriced, or at least not close to a high-value proposition on the coaching market. I also think it's next to impossible he can have the massive winrate pre rb he thinks he'll have at 100rnc.
That said, he clearly has a strong understanding of both theoretical and exploitative play, he's good at explaining the concepts in an easily understandable way, and he's released boatloads of high-value free content. The guy is definitely
I think this is a wonderful summary.
I think it's possible to beat 100NL on GG by 2bb/100 pre-rb if your objective is quality over quantity.
Every human being that tries to be top 1 LB everyday will inevitably have a lower winrate. By forcing yourself to play you start to make mistakes.
If every LB grinder played smaller sessions i believe their winrate would be higher. I guess that's what he is trying to do.
I think he can beat 100NL. The point is: can he beat 1k NL and up? How about 5k NL? If his thought proccess is so good like he
This. If he ends up finishing the challenge my guess is that he will land somewhere between 1-4bb/100 hoods. He seems to be smart guy so I think it is mind boggling how delusional he can be about achieveable winrates in that pool. He must really believe himself because otherwise he would not start this kind of challenge which he will surely fail in some terms. Also dont like him promoting that GG raketrap shithole when he could do this same challenge in Stars or Party and same time have a realistic chance to success.
It's not just Pete. All coaching and services are going up in price. Ridiculously. There are courses for $1000+ on RIO, RIO's Elite is now $200(!) a month. GTOWizard is $150/mo. There isn't much overhead for these businesses and individuals so I'm not understanding what the drastic increase in everything is due to.
It's not just Pete. All coaching and services are going up in price. Ridiculously. There are courses for $1000+ on RIO, RIO's Elite is now $200(!) a month. GTOWizard is $150/mo. There isn't much overhead for these businesses and individuals so I'm not understanding what the drastic increase in everything is due to.
That's for AI nodelocked GTO Wizard with all parameters/deep stack etc. For the standard version it's like $70 and that is good enough for 99% of the population.
Agreed that everything is crazy overpriced. It's like the old saying goes, the guys who were selling the shovels were the ones that got rich during the gold rush.
A small bag of Doritos in the US went from $1 to something like $2.50 over the last 4 years. A box of spaghetti went from 79 cents to like $3. Almost Everything is inflated 2-3x across the board
It doesn't make any sense for anyone to keep their rates wherever they used to be before because everything costs so much, and blaming people for charging what they think their time is worth is ridiculous.
A small bag of Doritos in the US went from $1 to something like $2.50 over the last 4 years. A box of spaghetti went from 79 cents to like $3. Almost Everything is inflated 2-3x across the board
It doesn't make any sense for anyone to keep their rates wherever they used to be before because everything costs so much, and blaming people for charging what they think their time is worth is ridiculous.
This logic doesn't many any sense.
You are saying that because inflation has gone up that by definition poker coaching hourly should go up, but at the same time, players hourly winrates are going down. The relationship to someone's coaching hourly should be loosely correlated to their playing hourly. There shouldn't be an asymmetrical relationship between a coach and a player because of inflation.
If a player's hourly goes down because of inflation, then of course the coaching hourlies should go down because of inflation.
The whole coaching scene is completely obscene. You have guys charging $300/hr for theory lessons and $500/hr when they don't even play the game.
I haven't watched enough(or barely any) of his content to form a strong opinion either way with regards to the value/quality, but I'll just say that there's nothing wrong w/ charging whatever he wants.
Especially for something that's non-essential like poker coaching in a competitive landscape the market will sort it out. It's like people complaining about players who charge too high MU for tourneys.
If you think the price is too high the solution is very simple.
Obviously there are people willing to pay and that's their problem.
Now on the other hand if he had a monopoly on electricity, fuel or water and was price gouging I would have a very different opinion.
I think we all owe Pete a little something.
Grinders manual opened up my eyes and I should be forever thankful as long as I’m playing.
Also who else has a similar library on YouTube like Pete’s? (Free)
Seems lots of us disagree heavily on how good Pete is. How can we get a definitive answer: seeing his results.
But he refuses to show that or says he has barely played any volume in the past 5 years (yet somehow is certain he can crush R&C harder than any other regs there).
And this new challenge will take 3 years to get an answer the way he's doing it, by which time he might've quit or GG shut down or who knows what else could happen
So you can't really blame people for assuming the worst
GG has so much more traffic than stars and esp party it makes sense to play there were the audience is.
For sure there is more traffic in GG, but if those games are almost unbeatable I don`t understand why he wants to fail there when there is perfectly beatable, constantly running nl100 pools in other sites. I thought the whole point of this challenge was to prove pokerworld and his customers that he can actually grind and make money. So why not choose the place you can actually do that and same time show your current youtube audience that somewhere in the internet there is actually games running where small stakes guy can grind and make money without paying 15k per month just to see Daniel Negreanu shaking his ass when he wins a pot. That is a no brainer choose imo.
For sure there is more traffic in GG, but if those games are almost unbeatable I don`t understand why he wants to fail there when there is perfectly beatable, constantly running nl100 pools in other sites.
He was with stars for some time so this is just a guess but maybe he doesn't want to promote them? Party traffic is so tiny (25 players atm) doesn't make any sense to sit there and play 3-4 handed reg games. Acr not a valid option because not regulated tough games etc. Winamax is bit fenced. So that basically leaves gg. Or maybe he just wants to beat gg for 9bb/100 and show us how good he actually is. Last option is the one that he is talking about post bonuses even when he is saying just 9bbs / 100.
This logic doesn't many any sense.
You are saying that because inflation has gone up that by definition poker coaching hourly should go up, but at the same time, players hourly winrates are going down. The relationship to someone's coaching hourly should be loosely correlated to their playing hourly. There shouldn't be an asymmetrical relationship between a coach and a player because of inflation.
If a player's hourly goes down because of inflation, then of course the coaching hourlies should go
Their hourly should be whatever supply and demand says it should be. If the rate is too expensive then no one will pay. If it's too cheap then everyone will pay and you'll have a full schedule. Why should he charge less if people will pay more? He should charge as much as he can to fill the schedule that he wants to work.
Their hourly should be whatever supply and demand says it should be. If the rate is too expensive then no one will pay. If it's too cheap then everyone will pay and you'll have a full schedule. Why should he charge less if people will pay more? He should charge as much as he can to fill the schedule that he wants to work.
It's a disingenuous business model. He isn't coaching you to beat the games. he is coaching you to think he beats the games. There is a fundamental difference between these two approaches.
Go read Skin in the game by Nassim Taleb. That whole book completely debunks your point of view.
I'll just quote the book. This is him in a nutshell.
It's a disingenuous business model. He isn't coaching you to beat the games. he is coaching you to think he beats the games. There is a fundamental difference between these two approaches.
Go read Skin in the game by Nassim Taleb. That whole book completely debunks your point of view.
I'll just quote the book. This is him in a nutshell.
it's funny you mention this because when i look back at most of my biggest blunders in life from poker to love to anything, had i been observing them as a 3rd party who acted as an advisor, in nearly every situation the mistake would have been obvious enough that i'd have advocated against it
It's a disingenuous business model. He isn't coaching you to beat the games. he is coaching you to think he beats the games. There is a fundamental difference between these two approaches.
Go read Skin in the game by Nassim Taleb. That whole book completely debunks your point of view.
I'll just quote the book. This is him in a nutshell.
It isn't and opinion or a point of view. Supply and demand, and maximizing ROI, are fundamental parts of any business.
You should be able to relate to that personally because you made a post in your blog thread about the exact concept that you're trying to argue against.
it's funny you mention this because when i look back at most of my biggest blunders in life from poker to love to anything, had i been observing them as a 3rd party who acted as an advisor, in nearly every situation the mistake would have been obvious enough that i'd have advocated against it
It's a good point most people don't realize until after.
Here is the basic problem with coaches that don't show graphs. You have to go off word of mouth, right? How else could you possibly figure out if a coach is worth the money or not.
The problem with word of mouth?
It's demographic targeted.
Go look in the coaching forum right now, 90% (maybe higher?) of reviews of the coaches have positive reviews. How is this possible? Is every coach Linus Love reincarnated?
It's because you are asking someone worse at poker to review someone better at poker, obviously the worse player is going to give the better player a good review the vast majority of the time.
This is why poker reviews don't work. Like AT ALL.
The only true metric is a graph of results and hopefully a recent graph. And even that has variance involved.
It isn't and opinion or a point of view. Supply and demand, and maximizing ROI, are fundamental parts of any business.
You should be able to relate to that personally because you made a post in your blog thread about the exact concept that you're trying to argue against.
Your problem is your thinking that just because you use the term "Business" it can't be disingenuous or immoral. This is an ethics question not a business question.
Of course from a business point of view everything he is doing is completely fine. That's not what we are talking about.
It's a disingenuous business model. He isn't coaching you to beat the games. he is coaching you to think he beats the games. There is a fundamental difference between these two approaches.
Go read Skin in the game by Nassim Taleb. That whole book completely debunks your point of view.
I'll just quote the book. This is him in a nutshell.
I also own a business, he's right. Free market decides the value not some arbitrary value that you think is correct or not. This is where almost all small businesses under achieve or fail. Either basing price as a comparative to competitors, or by undervaluing the price of their time.
I'm not saying Pete is a scammer or not. I trust what Benabadbeat says although my argument is like schrodingers Cat, who knows if he beats it unless he actually plays. But saying X player charges too much for his time is dumb. If people are suspected of charging "too much" then **** like this thread happen and the market either corrects itself or pete defies a lot of people itt and continues. You can argue his business model is disingenuous all you like but the reality is there is just a lag for market correction.
You've later gone in to ethics, again you're turning this in to a philosophical argument from your own subjective standpoint on a topic that has so much grey area. If he values his time at $xxx then that's absolutely his prerogative nothing immoral or unethical about that. What should poker players be able to charge? what is the maximum Pete can be allowed to charge in your view?
*edit I have no doubt that pete is doing this challenge because of market corrections (Ie coaching drying up as more people question his ability to beat the games) it's fairly efficient.
It's a good point most people don't realize until after.
Here is the basic problem with coaches that don't show graphs. You have to go off word of mouth, right? How else could you possibly figure out if a coach is worth the money or not.
The problem with word of mouth?
It's demographic targeted.
Go look in the coaching forum right now, 90% (maybe higher?) of reviews of the coaches have positive reviews. How is this possible? Is every coach Linus Love reincarnated?
What's wrong with this if the student actually learned something and ends up improving?
Do you actually believe that? People criticising you doesn't inherently mean you are "doing something right" and the idea that it does is total nonsense
haha i don't think it's true as a blanket statement no. but in the case of pete i believe it applies. there doesn't seem to be a valid reason why people think he's a phony/taking advantage of players, so i can only see the hate as misguided.
