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?
What's wrong with this if the student actually learned something and ends up improving?
His argument is demonstrably debunked in competitive sport eg golf/football. Look at the top sports coaches, almost none of them were as good players as the people they are coaching.
just look up Rennes football club at the moment for an extreme outlier.
Fwiw i'm not trying to defend pete either. I think not being open about results is shitty and I wouldn't recommend anyone use someone who is so opaque in this area, but I dislike bad faith arguments/logic worse.
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.
I just went to the coaching section of the website and i dont see anything like what youre talking about. The videos that i've watched don't give me any thought that he's misrepresenting himself.
It's so weird that people get upset over something that has zero effect on their life and act like they care about people who may or may not be paying, "Too much."
I also own my own business, and if people don't like what I charge for specific things, or don't like my policies, then they are free to shop elsewhere. This coaching industry is no different.
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.
I actually agree with some of the discourse. In a highly theoretical game like poker he really should have some results too.
There is some implicit misconception in some people that you take course A, or read course B, and that should make you beat stake C, because the author play stake D and beat it with winrate X 😀
This is completely false, and is a very bad way of thinking. It's false for the same reason why, during uni, you may have this wonderful teacher with very good credentials, and some students will succeed and others will fail. You may also have this bad teacher teaching another class, and still some students will succeed and others will fail.
Regardless of how good or bad a coach is, students should realize that a decent % of the responsibility in succeeding or failing is theirs. Effort, intellectual capability, organisation etc etc.
i think people are forgetting the entire cause for this discussion
he said he'd absolutely crush yet offers no proof - just a "trust me bro"
But I still insist that coaches should ask for, and people should have the willingness and the courage to give completely honest feedback, even if it is very negative, with the only condition that it's well reasoned and genuine. The poker course world would be better this way IMVHO.
I see someone advertise some course and all those wonderful reviews. How on earth can I believe someone will ever make anything and get perfect feedback from every single customer? It doesn't happen, and they can get away with this only because they are filtering it, and also because people are afraid to give honest negative criticisism.
i think people are forgetting the entire cause for this discussion
he said he'd absolutely crush yet offers no proof - just a "trust me bro"
Shoudn't he play the 300-400k hands first? I say I can get 6 bb/100 at 100nlz on pokerstars, and I will play 1M hands there. The proof will be the 1M hands I'm gonna play. If I fail, or abandon the challenge in the middle of it, now you have something to argue against me.
I don't know Pete personally, but I've been watching his content on and off for 10+ years now and find him to be an excellent teacher with a communication style that works for me. He's given me enough skills to consistently beat the micro and low stakes for years and I always recommend him to players looking for free resources to improve.
I don't personally buy the argument that a coach needs to be crushing the games and Pete is honest about spending most of his time on teaching. A good teacher will teach people how to think through problems themselves, which is a skill they will benefit from for life. The best teachers in my life haven't been the world class researchers but those that know how to teach. Pete definitely knows how to teach and the session he did with Nick Eastwood recently proves that. In addition to his videos, I've also raised some questions in the chat and discussed hands with him in other fora and always come away with a deeper understanding of a spot.
I'd be surprised if Pete's not beating 100nl, assuming he can avoid tilt. I wouldn't pay $300 per hour for anything, but it's plausible that an improving player could get quick payback on their investment if the sessions are good. That's all that matters. If one hour with Pete fixes a leak that gains you 0.5bb/100, you will get payback quickly. Whether that $300 with Pete is better value for money than another coach, I don't know. You also gain access to Pete's Discord group if you buy coaching, which must be worth something - especially if you don't know anybody else that plays.
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.
You seem to think for some reason that graphs and results make a good coach, which is fundamentally wrong for many reasons.
1. Variance is a massive factor, even over 500k + hand samples. A 6bb "crusher" could be a 2bb reg if he flipped on the other side of the run good line
2. Just because you understand a concept, doesn't mean you can explain it. I was taught by one of the top physics professors in the world and his class was a shitshow, while a probability class taught by an adjunct trader was one of the best I've ever taken.
3. Short-term results might not even be the goal of the student, and focusing on improving them instead of the overall game can be dangerous.
4. This is probably the most important one. There are a ****ton of grifter coaches in the poker community, and many of them maintain their business by not showing their mediocre results. If we prioritized results, the grifting would be even worse. It's just so easy to fake them. You can see this in the daytrading community, where almost every big coach who's essentially scamming people. At the very least in poker we get a form of honesty.
i think people are forgetting the entire cause for this discussion
he said he'd absolutely crush yet offers no proof - just a "trust me bro"
What actually is the challenge? Somewhere on page 3 ITT OP says Pete downgraded his WR estimate to 8-9bb/100 at 100 RnC, is that the latest? 400k hands?
You seem to think for some reason that graphs and results make a good coach, which is fundamentally wrong for many reasons.
1. Variance is a massive factor, even over 500k + hand samples. A 6bb "crusher" could be a 2bb reg if he flipped on the other side of the run good line
2. Just because you understand a concept, doesn't mean you can explain it. I was taught by one of the top physics professors in the world and his class was a shitshow, while a probability class taught by an adjunct trader was
Yeah I think we just aren't going to agree here, which is fine. It's an interesting discussion.
1. People always talk about variance in a negative light, that same 6bb winner could also be a 10bb winner.
2. That doesn't disprove what I am saying, the top physics professor talking to undergraduate students would be akin to Stefan trying to explain advanced poker concepts to a 2nl player. You need fundamental knowledge first before anything which is probably what the adjunct professor was more familiar with.
Also, the best theoretical physicist of all time disagrees with your take.
3. You don't have to distinguish between short term results and improving, the more you study and improve, on average, the better your results will be.
4. Agreed there are a ton of grifters.
I'm of the opinion that on average the better player the better the coach, give me Linus/Stefan over any high stakes coach in the business and I don't think it's that close.
I wanted to this put this quote here because Weinstein is talking about physics but you can make parallels to poker. This is basically my take on the Peter Clarke situation.
Erin Weinstein talking to Joe Rogan.
"Now, the point is, let's imagine that we had Neil Degrasse Tyson on. He's not having any of this ****. He's locked in. Because he's not really a physicist at a practicing level, he has to worry about his respectability. He is 100% one of the most brilliant people at scientific exposition I've ever seen in my life. But he can't think. He's not ready to do great science, because great science has an element of irresponsibility. And what we don't understand, is that when we decide that everybody has to do good science, you doom yourself. Many of the greatest scientists of all time were borderline quacks."
Like the pool is so bad at gg , but the rake is insane.Don't know what to think , but for sure he won't do 400k hands he will just drag it forever and really doubt hes gonna finish as winner pre rb anything over 1bb/100 i would be massively surprised.You don't play 400k hands with 2 tables here and there.
Hes awful.I've watched like most of his **** and its just a waste of time."watched is a strong word i've seen few of them and scrolled though the rest".
First thing u need to realize if ur micro/low stakes player wanting to beat the stakes.You don't need some "coach" to explain to you how X,Y and Z spot work in theory.You need to know how to be disciplined and how to read people and how to attack properly capped ranges.
95% of the time he speaks about theoretical **** that nobody should give a crap about at those stakes.
PS.You don't need to be the best player to be the best coach and u don't need to be even a winning player at a stake to be coaching it , but it just helps to prove your points.
Hes awful.I've watched like most of his **** and its just a waste of time."watched is a strong word i've seen few of them and scrolled though the rest".
First thing u need to realize if ur micro/low stakes player wanting to beat the stakes.You don't need some "coach" to explain to you how X,Y and Z spot work in theory.You need to know how to be disciplined and how to read people and how to attack properly capped ranges.
95% of the time he speaks about theoretical **** that nobody should give a cra
Not sure which videos you've watched or scrolled through but Pete's changed a lot compared to some time ago. He used to be very theoretical but has changed to become a lot more exploitative.
curiousity got the best of me and i ended up watching a bunch of his videos
gotta say that i agree with everything he's said, nothing felt off or wrong and he explains things in such a clear and concise manner that it really resonates and makes sense
there's a number of things that I've already been subconsciously doing but never really internalized or thought about why i did it that he painted out in black and white that i feel will make me a better player going forward because i now understand better why i do what i do
also some other things which were new concepts i've heard for the first time but make intuitive sense
idk about taking his course, but i'll definitely be consuming all his youtube content from here on out
Apparently he's planning on streaming the challenge every day in March so we might get some more regular updates about his progress / results.
easy to fool an American you guys believe in Donald Trump too!
peter clarks problem is he did never have high level conversations of poker with people who have studied the game deeply (and coached plenty of players who have really become mid-stakes/high-stakes players) and he teaches stuff he has just "figured off himself"
these things do "make sense" if your not very advanced in theory - for example in one video he said -"cold calling button when bb is fish comes up better than 3-betting because
I would imagine calling is better in this situation. This maximises the chances of playing a pott against a whale ip at a high spr. Who cares if a good player in the sb squeezes you out of the pot and how a whale doesn't 4 properly in the bb. On GG theres is preflop rake and again against a very losing player they are losing at a far higher rate than any rake so again who cares.
Saying its infinitely higher ev to 3b in this scenario is delusional.
Cold calling is the only option that guarantees we get to play vs a fish.
and the way the fish gets outplayed is his pre-flop mistakes already when you 3-bet he makes mistakes
I'm pretty sure a fish is going to make more mistakes preflop when you call and he calls his entire range (or more), as opposed to when you 3b and he folds almost everything he's supposed to fold.
you know logic is going to be sound from anyone who starts off with "stupid americans" and then proceeds to politard
and from a brand new account as well
if you want some good unhinged lols check out the thread he started
public service announcement guys
you know logic is going to be sound from anyone who starts off with "stupid americans" and then proceeds to politard
and from a brand new account as well
if you want some good unhinged lols check out the thread he started
And fires off multiple posts with no one replying to him.
public service announcement guys
much better
