blonde poker forum

Are some people more cut out to be teachers of poker than players. I think there are certain people who are theoretically good at the game and away from the table can grasp concepts and teach them etc but at the table they go to pot.

Things such as emotional pressure (tilt etc), restricted decision times online, playing scared money (i know people should be comfortable playing within their bankrolls but things like pressure to pay bills etc can play on peoples' minds).

This is just a recent thought I've had and didn't know whether people think some are better teachers of the game and other s are better players.

Which do people think they are if any?

Why should we help you write an article?!  ;)

There are some people who explain poker better than they play it...here is one such man engaging in just that.

There are also people who write better about poker than they play it. Snoopy and Floppy spring to mind.

Hadn't thought about making this into an article until I made the post. Don't worry though u will receive full credit and a nominal fee for ur participation in the thread ;)

Most definately some people are better at coaching than playing, this can be observed in many forms of sport.......golf and snooker spring to mind, many top players are coached by people that have not reached the highest standard in the game, even Ronnie O'Sullivan has a coach! There are many small technical issues that can make a huge difference & I think that is true of the game we love too! 

This is true in teaching, im sure a few of us have had the pain of sitting in Lectures at uni being bored out of our skull by various Professors. Most of the professors during my degree were awful teachers but undoubtly damn good at Maths. Yet you get brilliant teachers who could barely pass an A level in there subject.

Same is true to a degree in poker though to teach a person to be a winning player, the coach has to be a winning player him/herself.

Bryce paradis springs to mind here, he is probably the most succesful online limit player ever. Yet i had real trouble following wtf he was talking about in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IaaRxq4J_o&feature=related

Posted by: Longy
I don't agree with this. Luck plays no part in theory.

I do agree with Digger though. David Leadbetter can teach someone how to win the Masters and yet cannot do so himself. Theory and the practical are two entirely different things. You can teach someone how to win the WSOP but winning it in reality involves factors that are completely out of your control.

I was going to agree with this

I'm no great shakes as a player, but think I'm a decent teacher/mentor. As long as you don't ask me to have the cojones to do it myself at the table lol

Luck plays no part in being a long term winning player.

I dont agree that the same principal really exists in poker as golf etc, it's just different.

I think it more plausible that you can be a good player but a crap teacher, Ive been playing for a living for two years now and barring some stupid bankroll things Ive done have been  successful, but as a teacher I'm crap, i know what to do and why I'm doing it but have great difficulty explaining it to my friends, talking about the theory s of poker with other experienced player is something with which I'm very comfortable but trying to teach a novice is something Ive spectacularly failed at several times now.

what about if i'm really really really unlucky?

Fees! Does this work retrospectively for a past article or should I just be happy with the look on Kevs face when he saw my name in the mag?  :D

if u can sort me out a HM chip set or something then we'll talk ;)

Posted by: Longy

This isn't actually true. There are lots of long term winners who have been lucky. Anyone who wins the WSOP has been lucky, and as such luck has played a part in their overall longterm results. I say again, there is no luck in theory and quoting Sklansky or whoever doesn't change that.