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?
You go to college and you learn about trading theory from professors who have never traded in their life. I believe the inventors of the black-scholes model which is one of the most widely studied models for pricing derivatives never traded in their life.
wrt trading/poker, most people just need to learn the basics, and imo being a great teacher is way more important than being a great player in order to teach them.
I would have both, if possible. Great teacher and successful practitioner in the field. Not sure if Ed Thorp is a good teacher, but I would rather take lessons on pricing derivatives from him than the black-scholes folks.
You go to college and you learn about trading theory from professors who have never traded in their life. I believe the inventors of the black-scholes model which is one of the most widely studied models for pricing derivatives never traded in their life.
wrt trading/poker, most people just need to learn the basics, and imo being a great teacher is way more important than being a great player in order to teach them.
Strictly speaking poker. If you're not a winning player with a legitimate sample so not 60k hands like some morons have you shouldn't be coaching and I refuse to believe you're worth the money you're charging.
idk if Pete actually said what they wrote, but "never think about your range" really isn't good advice
What is the context?
My (flawed?) understanding is that you can't really disregard what your range look like vs a good regular because if you play inconsistent with your range, which usually means turning some part of it face up, strenghtening some part and weakening another etc, you will get yourself punished.
If you're playing vs someone you can realistically expect will never do it, either because he is a completely clueless recreational, he won't be around long enough, he doesn't kmow how to a
Yeah, context is important here. He basically said that to be obsessed with "balance" vs unbalanced opponents is to throw
EV away. Instead we should just focus on playing hand vs range and maximize EV. The only time we should strive for balance is when it is necessary in order to maximize our EV.
I don't remember the exact video, but I saved a screenshot from it.
What is the context?
My (flawed?) understanding is that you can't really disregard what your range look like vs a good regular because if you play inconsistent with your range, which usually means turning some part of it face up, strenghtening some part and weakening another etc, you will get yourself punished.
If you're playing vs someone you can realistically expect will never do it, either because he is a completely clueless recreational, he won't be around long enough, he doesn't kmow how to a
This is a very good summary. He plays 100 R&C now right?
So I can see why he could come to that conclusion because it's the best way to play at that level. But to move up and compete with regs who are actually good you can't "play your hand" in every hand, most of the time you have to play your range and this is what all the best players do
This is a very good summary. He plays 100 R&C now right?
So I can see why he could come to that conclusion because it's the best way to play at that level. But to move up and compete with regs who are actually good you can't "play your hand" in every hand, most of the time you have to play your range and this is what all the best players do
my guess is he is against the idea of learning about how to play ranges before you learn how to play hands in a vacuum. I have seen many players who know their range is supposed to overbet turn, or check range, or donk a flop, but actually have no clue which types of hands are supposed to do this. So basically for 99% of players learning what a hand should do > learning what their range should do.
surely pete must have played professionally for a bit before coaching
are people guessing that he just went straight to coaching or that confirmed?
if so, i think that makes it even more impressive, i would absolutely love to sit down and have a drink with to pick the brain of someone who decided "ya know what, i'm going to learn poker for the goal of starting a coaching business"
You go to college and you learn about trading theory from professors who have never traded in their life. I believe the inventors of the black-scholes model which is one of the most widely studied models for pricing derivatives never traded in their life.
wrt trading/poker, most people just need to learn the basics, and imo being a great teacher is way more important than being a great player in order to teach them.
Apples and oranges?
Poker is a competition, you can’t beat competition with knowledge alone, you need experience. Idk anything about trading but I assume you only need to beat the market, professors understand the market.
You go to college and you learn about trading theory from professors who have never traded in their life. I believe the inventors of the black-scholes model which is one of the most widely studied models for pricing derivatives never traded in their life.
wrt trading/poker, most people just need to learn the basics, and imo being a great teacher is way more important than being a great player in order to teach them.
If he was for instance some maths professor who’d gone deep on the theory of poker you could have a point he could teach something valuable even without having played himself
But he’s not. He’s merely someone who’s looked at pio sims like everyone else and makes surface level comments about them.
You need to have competed in poker to understand what playing well really means. Can’t believe people would disagree with this on a poker forum. And over a big sample because if you only play 50k hands you will learn things that are bad but seem good because of variance.
The issue with accepting coaching from someone without proven results is trust. Carroters prices are not exactly cheap, so maybe some people here feel uncomfortable paying, or knowing that clueless guys and girls are paying, to get advice from someone they don't trust. Also, other than maybe testimonials (which can also be very misleading) you don't have a lot of tools for judging someone other than what their achievements look like. So, I fully understand why some people here criticize Peter.
Taking the approach of the funny youtuber entertainer doesn't help that much either, when he always seemed to like portraying himself as a professor treating poker as an academic subject.
What I don't like about the haters is that they seem to ignore that you can have a taste of what the guy look like, cheaply, from sources like RIO, FTGU, maybe even his books although I think they are outdated etc, and judge how knowledgeable he is by reading, or listening, and then thinking, without any prejudices. I don't think he gave any wrong advice, nor seemed ignorant of obvious concepts. His courses were actually quite good for beginners IMO, and helped me a lot. And in the end, what truly matters is where your winrate goes after taking the course, not what his winrate looks like.
If you can filter out all the youtuber nonsense stuff, you can have a taste of the guy for free. I randomly watch stuff there from time to time and don't remember seeing anything wrong, other than that I completely disagree with ditching trainers as a good advice (can't remember the video nor timestamp but he said that) if you have any sort of ambition of moving up and play tougher games eventually. You can definitely train exploits and to not misplay common spots while you're still a relatively novice playing lowstakes.
Apples and oranges?
Poker is a competition, you can’t beat competition with knowledge alone, you need experience. Idk anything about trading but I assume you only need to beat the market, professors understand the market.
Depends on the type of tradings. Market makers for example are constantly betting enormous sums of money against other industry players so it is very much like a competition. The market is a big game made up of millions of players!
If he was for instance some maths professor who’d gone deep on the theory of poker you could have a point he could teach something valuable even without having played himself
But he’s not. He’s merely someone who’s looked at pio sims like everyone else and makes surface level comments about them.
You need to have competed in poker to understand what playing well really means. Can’t believe people would disagree with this on a poker forum. And over a big sample because if you only play 50k hands yo
Is it true he's never competed? I genuinely have no idea. I thought he was a small stakes reg who moved on to coaching but I've consumed maybe one video from the guy so I don't really know.
In his latest twitch stream 22/8 he addresses the issue with R&C at the start of the stream, like how the preflop chart that most fish use affects how much they can lose in a short space of time and he also said he has a much better grasp how to play in the pool now compared to when he started and is better at explaining it on stream nowadays.
That being said, he said that playing reg tables is probably better as R&C is so nitty and it's like getting blood from a stone most of the times. No real confirmation about this challenge but he's not made his mind up where it would be best to put volume in as of yet. Also mentioned he would like to play 500nl or 1knl on stream at some point.
Later on the stream he said he played probably about 1M to 1.5M hands (300-400k a year) before he started focusing more on building up his business which then absorbed most of his time.
I wonder how he will explain to his viewers why the table insta-fills when he sits at 1k
I wonder how he will explain to his viewers why the table insta-fills when he sits at 1k
would this not be true for any account that isn't a known winner at the stakes?
ie if linus created a new account nobody knew about and sat down at 1k it'd instant fill as well
my point is that's only valid if he'd been around at those stakes for a bit and the tables still insta filled once he joins
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.
In the selling of coaching services, the person who has the most skin in the game is the person paying $325 an hour for coaching services.
Like the far older maxim says Caveat Emptor.
