Response to Comment on Rush Poker Part III: Math Whizzes, California Poker...
To continue with my loose response to the commentor I almost missed.
Really, games like Rush poker are custom built for the next generation to figure out ways to quickly exploit the gameplay and lessen the aptitude of feel players. Even now those of us not privvy to that kind of information (or lacking the disposability of time to learn it and innovate) are probably at a massive disadvantage. We all want to learn poker and figure out seams of strategies on our own but sometimes it's better left to those who have done the work and applying their concepts.
My friend ran an online site that went busto (in part because of U.I.E.G.A) and on it they were offering California Hold 'Em. In that game they expanded the deck from 13 cards in every suit to I think 14 or 15 (but with two ranks unsuited to keep flushes from being easier than straights). That game never really took off, in part due to the demise of the site, and its attempt to debug Texas Hold'em robbed it of some of its intrinsic gameplay and charm.
Anyway, for a window of time there was this opening for math whizzes to figure out strategy and instead of catching up to "feel" players, force them to catch up to them (as you could argue they've successfully done in dominating the online world after catching and passing live players).
So, I think at the very least finding a poker coach for online play is something we should all be doing especially if we are barely ekeing out a profit because many of them have already invested into that strategic thought we don’t have the time to do (but should probably find if we were to be exclusively poker players).
I think there are so many other variables in live play that can allow you to exploit players, that if you are barely winning money there too you should seek out a live coach. I for one, am not confident enough in my online play to ever think about coaching there, but I think I overcome that in live play because of all the other information at my disposal and a certain knack for reading people.
Take Monkey, he’ll be the first to tell you he like most of us has difficulty beating the online game consistently, yet his talents as a live player are as good as anybody elses. You want to learn about live poker watch him play when he's exploiting his personality and his people reading skills is a good start.
He knows when to apply pressure and when to duck for cover. Unfortunately, you may see what he excels at and not be able to duplicate it. I don't know how Monkey would be as a coach, I'd imagine if he wanted to, he could be a great one.
I’ve done live coaching and given some very solid players some great tips and areas to exploit their opponents. I think what I do translates really well for people that already have a solid understanding of fundamental poker. I wouldn’t dream of trying to coach anybody in online play.
As for suggestions, you mention Brandon Jarrett, I think he’s got a good head on his shoulders and his results speak for themselves, but I have never seen him in a teaching environment. He may be quite good at it and able to separate the lesson plan from his ego (as you imply) but I don’t know for sure.
More to follow...
Really, games like Rush poker are custom built for the next generation to figure out ways to quickly exploit the gameplay and lessen the aptitude of feel players. Even now those of us not privvy to that kind of information (or lacking the disposability of time to learn it and innovate) are probably at a massive disadvantage. We all want to learn poker and figure out seams of strategies on our own but sometimes it's better left to those who have done the work and applying their concepts.
My friend ran an online site that went busto (in part because of U.I.E.G.A) and on it they were offering California Hold 'Em. In that game they expanded the deck from 13 cards in every suit to I think 14 or 15 (but with two ranks unsuited to keep flushes from being easier than straights). That game never really took off, in part due to the demise of the site, and its attempt to debug Texas Hold'em robbed it of some of its intrinsic gameplay and charm.
Anyway, for a window of time there was this opening for math whizzes to figure out strategy and instead of catching up to "feel" players, force them to catch up to them (as you could argue they've successfully done in dominating the online world after catching and passing live players).
So, I think at the very least finding a poker coach for online play is something we should all be doing especially if we are barely ekeing out a profit because many of them have already invested into that strategic thought we don’t have the time to do (but should probably find if we were to be exclusively poker players).
I think there are so many other variables in live play that can allow you to exploit players, that if you are barely winning money there too you should seek out a live coach. I for one, am not confident enough in my online play to ever think about coaching there, but I think I overcome that in live play because of all the other information at my disposal and a certain knack for reading people.
Take Monkey, he’ll be the first to tell you he like most of us has difficulty beating the online game consistently, yet his talents as a live player are as good as anybody elses. You want to learn about live poker watch him play when he's exploiting his personality and his people reading skills is a good start.
He knows when to apply pressure and when to duck for cover. Unfortunately, you may see what he excels at and not be able to duplicate it. I don't know how Monkey would be as a coach, I'd imagine if he wanted to, he could be a great one.
I’ve done live coaching and given some very solid players some great tips and areas to exploit their opponents. I think what I do translates really well for people that already have a solid understanding of fundamental poker. I wouldn’t dream of trying to coach anybody in online play.
As for suggestions, you mention Brandon Jarrett, I think he’s got a good head on his shoulders and his results speak for themselves, but I have never seen him in a teaching environment. He may be quite good at it and able to separate the lesson plan from his ego (as you imply) but I don’t know for sure.
More to follow...
Comments