This is the End
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 сен 2024
- 💸 Boost Your Win Rate with CASH INJECTION: 👉 www.carrotcorn....
🎓 Our Comprehensive Cash Game Course: THE CARROT POKER SCHOOL 👉www.carrotcorn...
🛒 For all our poker courses and products 👉 www.carrotcorn...
🥇 For poker coaching 👉 www.carrotcorn...
Follow me on Twitch 👉 / carrot_corner
Follow me on Twitter 👉 / carroters1
📜 Video Description 📜
From Stalling to Mauling is now complete. In this farewell coaching session with Jess we check in on her overall results and review some key hands from a recent session. 
Игры
Thank you so much for this opportunity and I’m really sorry that I couldn’t have a winning graph for the end of the series.
Like a couple of comments have said I think I could have done better in applying the things learned and I don’t feel I have done you a good service in this.
Some sessions where you watched while I played would have been amazing but please don’t feel bad about not doing those. You literally gave me everything I needed to improve and these results are on me.
I will add though that throughout this series there were a few things that happened IRL that I feel distracted me from poker and that couldn’t have been helped. A redundancy and two new jobs is a lot going on and I’m quite sure that threw me off a little.
Im in a good place now tho so hoping to come back much improved as I feel you have gave me a SOLID base of knowledge and guidance to work from.
Thank you so much for letting me be a part of this series, and thank you to everyone in the comments supporting every week, I’m sorry I couldn’t have done better for you all ❤️
GL Jess ❤
@@nat2r An idea you might consider considering you code. Do the same format with a student with you code language. hopefully Python. But otherwise really enjoyable to watch and good luck.
@@ubuntu21 you have me mistaken
Jess, I just wanna say the courage it took to do this series is incredible, especially in a game like poker, so driven by ego. Respect.
Do you still play more than 2 tables at a time? I noticed with Pete's last student that he would learn a ton in coaching sessions and then have no clue why he made the plays he did once reviewing, playing way too many tables. I think you and Pete made big strides and you should never feel bad about your progress!
I've personally struggled with the same thing, but anything more than one or two tables as a beginner/intermediate is almost never going to work in my opinion. Good luck inthe future!
if you read this, Jess, keep building on the progress made! don't give up
I respect Pete's honesty here. I haven't been able to buy the course yet, but my understanding of the game (and my graph) have increased exponentially just from watching the RUclips content.
Whatever reason is holding you back you need to discard. If you can’t get the full scholarship get grade one by itself. You’ll be able to afford the other two grades quicker
Agree and I am in the same boat. I really want to buy the full scholarship, which is a great deal for the amount and quality of the content but is out of my price range atm.
You know what Pete, I’ve only watch the first 5 minutes and I can see genuine passion for coaching and improving your students. If I wasn’t already a midstakes crusher I would snap you up. Your students are in good hands, it’s obvious.
Thanks for the kind words
I too love you Pete and admire your analogies and insane poker perspective and wisdom!@@CarrotCornerPoker
@@CarrotCornerPoker
Love you Pete. You´re the BEST!!!
The diatribe startting at 21:10 is one of the explinations of playing poker on a professional level. fucking stellar Pete.
Thanks a lot!
A big thank you to Pete and Jess for letting us follow along - both of you were open and honest. A love this one: “It is all about waiting for the spot and then taking it. You do not control the spots that come your way. Your job is to sit there and do the best you can with the spots that come.”
wow man, so much wisdom and I'm only 23min in. I feel like I improved a lot already. Basically I knew most of it, but couldn't phrase or understand those concepts this clearly. If there is more content of your work like this, I need to binge watch them.
This means a lot, thanks.
I think the AQ hand demonstrates that once Jess has bypassed that first thought, driven by the sort of old habits that try to simplify the game to avoid discomfort, her hand reading and intuition are much improved. Throughout the series, she's seemed receptive to direct feedback on strategy, session habits, and mentality; where it can be hard for us to detach our egos. GJ & GL Jess. Great series. Looking forward to From Leaking to Peaking or w/e.
Much respect to the coach and student.
Thank you Jess. The things will be in place soon. I have the same mental leak and I'm not giving up from the things I know I can achieve with resilience. In the end, it's just a metter of time. Enjoy all the aspects of life! Cheers from Brazil!
This is a good example of why you should find a coach who actually plays the game and wins in the current environment.
Thanks to Jess for sharing her story. Few people are strong enough for sharing their mistakes.
Good luck Jess
Hey Pete,
I appreciate you answering in detail to my constructive feedback in the previous video. I can see you are genuinely passionate about coaching, poker and seeing your students improve. To provide more constructive feedback. I don't feel Jess actually ever fully applied herself to what you have been trying to teach her. From a fundamental perspective you are giving her a framework to beat these stakes but from other videos she did not actually push through and really do all of her modules. Study off the tables, and develop the natural curiosity of why, I don't think I heard her ask a single time in the entire course of 'why' or her have loads of interesting questions for you between the sessions. She's clearly also on a downswing but these things are a guaranteed part of the game and how well she can play and execute is part of your winrate. That being said, I think she genuinely enjoys the game and I hope she drops down limits, restructures her game, tests out what you've been teaching her and move back up.
I think as a coach you might want to address the mental disposition of your students earlier. Often losing players have risk aversion, ingrained bias which is one of the reasons they are losing and no amount of good advice, and strategic content will sink in until these leaks are addressed. I did recommend your channel to a few of my friends as I think you are genuinely an excellent coach despite several of your last students doing poorly. Look forward to s3.
Best of luck Jess - no doubt you will get there by taking all of Pete’s advice on board! ❤
Sometimes being compassionate means being blunt. It’s uncomfortable to speak the truth sometimes but we need to do it for the betterment of those who desperately need it. Also, I felt like you were speaking to me directly here, as I suffer from some related mental-game issues. I appreciated this video. And I recommend taking your own advice about poker and applying it to teaching (I am a private classical piano teacher): don’t be results oriented. I’ve watched many of these coachings with Jess and you’ve done well with her I think. Cheers
Can I just say these coaching journey videos have been amazing for me. I've gotten so much out of them and can relate to both Jess and Mark's struggles. I've incorporated overbetting more into my game and improved my general thinking about each hand - polarized betting ranges, hand reading etc. I'm up a few buy-ins playing 50NL on R&C on GG over 20K hands and happy with my overall play. I think I'm a bit further along than both Jess and Mark but it's great to get a refresher on not ceding small pots, attacking capped ranges and getting max value with big overbets for value. Pete you're an excellent coach and if I hit a plateau soon I may well sign up for some additional coaching but this series has opened the door and I'm only going up for now. Cheers!
Jess! As we know downswings are inevitable and I'm sure you'll pull yourself out of this one.
I've had so many in my 10 years of online and live. They can be a devastating and terrifying spiral. I lost 2k within about a week along with card deadness and weeks of break even stretches playing live (which I only play now).
Watching them play and having them talk through their thought process WHILE they play, and then reviewing it with them afterwords word be a great way to help
really love your content. no nonsense approach, lot of heart, tender but firm!
Quote of the vid "You have to train like an athlete, but you have to perform like a scholar in Poker."
I'm sure you do this with your students but maybe you can make a video about the extent of how bad downswings can be or how murderously long break even stretches can be. Even if you practice the techniques you show which I use myself and certainly believe to be correct there can still be 80 / 100+ hour stretches where nothing is happening for you and every flop is completely unfavourable to your range and you constantly are whiffing in 3 bet pots. Even if you get a student to high standard of play understanding the true toll of variance is another thing completely and that I'd imagine is where most people falter. The game within the game. Best of luck Jess. Stick with it!!
This is my exact problem with zoom. I seem to make progress and then I totally fall off a cliff. It seems that for a short and intense period of hands I get beat no matter what. I could have a royal flush and still get beat LOL! It is soul destroying. Well done to you both for discussing. I think this issue is very common. For me, this occurs mainly with zoom, less so with regular tables. When it does happen, I tilt bad; less so than previously, but still bad. Keep going. All is not lost. All the best, Peter PS Love the content.
I notice the short periods of bad variance feel worse on Zoom because the hands are coming so fast. You take a horrible bad beat, then the next hand comes immediately and you have no time to take a breath and recalibrate. Then you play worse still reeling from what happened 10 seconds ago and it spirals into more losses. I've learned to just sit out for a few minutes if things get like that.
Again @41:20 there's absolutely nothing wrong with Jess line here. No-one is raising flop with a set and then on a double flush board turn betting 1/3. Why do we care that we're an equity disadvantage if villain jams? We're not expecting that to happen. We raise to push equity against worse flush draws + straight draws which make up a huge part of villains range in this line now.
I think this was the hand Jess played the best by far and got her max value. Had she just called the turn, villain probably just gives up river now he's hit a pair and we can no longer value bet either.
In a normal line where villain makes a reasonable bet on the turn then calling is obviously correcr but at these stakes you need to be pouncing on opponents that give away bet sizing tells and play your hand to what gets the most value.
I think Pete's problem with the hand is the thought processes that lead to the decisions, more than the decisions themselves. Yeah, if you put villain on exactly weaker flushes then she played the hand absolutely perfectly, but there's other stuff in villains range which might dictate playing the hand another way. The turn feels like a way ahead, way behind spot, as you've either top pair with a dominating flush draw or you're behind to a set...so why polarise by raising?
@@charleslenton3452Ordinarily it would be a way ahead/way behind spot but NOT when opponent decides to bet 1/3 on this board with this SPR. The bet size just doesn't make any sense - good players know to bet bigger to set up a river shove + to charge draws. Bad players know to bet big because they're terrified of being outdrawn.
The only logical conclusion is they're using this bet size with a draw or a weak value hand that they're just confused what to do after the A came (like a K9 type hand) - you see these bet sizing tells all the time at small stakes and being able to exploit them is crucial in maximising your WR. Here, Jess exploited that - maybe she wasn't sure why she did what she did - but Pete's thought process about the spot is just incorrect. His logic for not raising is that we're not an equity favourite if the money goes in - but that isn't a reason to NOT raise. You're allowed to raise in poker without wanting the money to go all in.
We're raising because based on our bet sizing reads - we're ahead and want to put more money into the pot to make sure we can get the most value if we hit our flush (or 2 pair) and we don't expect for villain to rejam over our turn raise given our thoughts on their range.
Like I said - if villain had bet a normal turn size there would be less of a need to raise because then we would be in a way ahead/way behind spot. If you think they're heavily weighted towards draws that won't fold but also won't bluff river if they miss - then it might make sense to still raise. But yeah - in the spot we had - raise just makes the most sense.
@@Mwuesse it's not that I completely disagree with your analysis, it's that I go back to my initial point about Pete questioning Jess's logic and (having watched the entire series) the way she defaults to random buzzwords/phrases and over-aggressive actions. I think she uses the phrase "we're always getting it in" in this spot, and you see Pete visibility look exacerbated at that point...because he wants Jess to think harder about spots and not just think "I have top pair and the nut flush draw, it's always going in". She readily admits herself she defaults to taking actions that mean taking the least amount of decisions and I think that's what Pete has a problem with. Maybe he over-emphasis the point about equity, but I think he's asking Jess to consider the line when the opponents does have a set and she's "getting it in" as a big underdog.
@@charleslenton3452 Questioning the logic and disagreeing with it is fine and I don't disagree with that. The problem is his conclusion about how to play the spot is all wrong. He concluded that calling is clearly better when I explained how much worse I think it is. If I was replying to Jess I'd say - you're not raising turn because you're going to get it in anyway. You're raising turn because villain made a bet sizing tell and you believe you have enough equity against that to raise for value. If villain shoves, it's not the best situation - but we still have equity to call off and we don't expect it to happen often.
First, I think it's way over-confident to say that "no one" is doing anything at lower stakes full of recs that don't understand the nuances of bet sizing. We may talk about player pool tendencies, but I don't know what the tendencies are for that bet sizing at that level. Maybe you have some MDA insights I don't, but without that I'm not willing to read too much into the bet sizing. I might agree that I would lean towards it being a draw, but how much lean is the question.
Second, with Jess having the AdQd that's quite a lot of flush draws already out of the deck, and SB should be (not saying they are) playing a tighter raise/fold strategy out of the SB with a bet/call in front of them, so how many FDs are actually in their range? 54s, 87s, JTs, J9s, KJs, KTs... that's 6 combinations if they're always calling and never using them as part of their bluff-raise range (which they SHOULD be doing). while there's 9 combinations of sets. Now, it helps that we're crushing the former but on the turn we're pretty crushed by the latter. I agree with Pete that calling to keep all the bluffs in is better than trying to squeeze out a bit more equity against the hands we beat that will also call because you set them up for a river shove if they miss. I think the amount of players that are still willing to bluff the river after a turn raise is pretty small; this player just happened to be the exception. Meanwhile, if they shove the turn unless they're always doing that with every draw (they shouldn't be, and most players won't) you're going to be up against sets a lot and have just given yourself worse equity to call than you would've had if you'd kept all their bluffs in on the river.
So I think even in the scenario where you're right that villain is weighted towards draws there's still good (probably better) reasons for calling the turn because you're keeping in all the bluffs and encouraging them to bet bigger on the river with those bluffs.
Thanks for all the video's Pete and Jess. Learned a lot of it. Good luck with the rest of the poker journey Jess. I grind the 25nl GG tables, so maybe we already met some time in the war field (dont know your screen name). Hey pete, any idea how Mark is doing on the tables??
i m linking this to new players asking for advice, in my opinion this is the best episode you have ever made for them because it is very down to earth leak fixing common thought process mistakes
I feel like a poker genius when I watch these sessions. Jess is still making the same big mistake she was making in Episode One - raising weak value hands (I'm thinking of the AQdd turn raise specifically). When villain is repping a stronger hand than yours, and wouldn't fold any such hands, then you NEVER raise. Why would you? Chewbacca living on Endor makes more sense than raising here. It's even worse when you have additional equity in the form of a draw because when they rejam you have to choose between folding away your equity or making a bad call, both haemorrhaging EV.
Keep going Jess! No harm dropping down a stake to come back up again to get that confidence back
Thanks for this video, the analogy to solving a coding problem or working on an assembly line is really helpful!
I have been following the channel and content since a few weeks. (I am a tournament player & getting interested in cash section for obvious reasons)
I'd like to begin by saying - the HONESTY from Pete in this video is just the absolute nuts! No sugar coating, no excuses, not letting go of the seemingly subtle signs of a mental game leak all at the risk of coming across rude, harsh, emotional.
I'd go ahead and say Jess is clearly doing a lot of things better than previous technically, but to me, she's out of sync in the non-technical aspect of the game.
"everything went as planned" bit may be used as a sarcastic+witty comment by many, but is often a disguised emotional outlet of taking solace in seeing variance work in our favor.
EXTREME self-harm potential (EV wise) in that thought process, especially when " things don't go as planned".
I believe in being honest & I am so glad I found a few people along the way (over last 2 years) who told me bluntly whatever it was.
A year ago - it was about a SERIOUS REALITY check in terms of how underdeveloped my technical thought process is
to
Few months ago - how few things are inexcusable, especially if I call myself a studying player..
Above conversations were calm and in no way heated, but could easily come across otherwise if people didn't know the context.
Long Story Short: I appreciate Jess taking it in the right spirit and putting herself out there and Pete for addressing so many aspects in this video and putting it in such a value packed content form!
I hope Jess continues to build and Pete continues to be like this & better :)
GL All!
P.S. I am really tempted to jump a bit more actively in cash learning. I'd definitely invest part of my next "bink" into Grade 1/2 learning.
Would you be interested in doing this with a live player? However i would of course throw some $$ on ACR for the video purposes and both for my own learning purposes
Not getting stacks in with the set @36:21 is a mistake. Call flop is fine but i think raising is preferable here. Villains river sizing is a likely tell that I'm looking to exploit by semi-thin value shoving my set here. I just think they have 1 or 2 pair at best here so often.
people keep forgetting this game is actually only playable because of the blinds, if those were not there you'd fold everything but AA. Taking down the blinds or the blinds + open must feel as a win for you if you really want to become profitable. If you always try to swing for the fences with for example JJ you run into QQ+ just every other time and kill all profit, especially buying in for 200BB+
How is Jess doing at the moment. Watched the serie for the second time and really curious. Same question about Mark
Mark is still playing poker. Not sure about Jess but she is active on Twitter.
Do you mind me asking how Jess is getting such a generous rake back deal? Id be keen to explore the opportunity!
Haha me top. Only getting a little.
GG's PVI makes a big diff - sorry just realised you were talking about the affiliation deal mentioned in the beginning
Pete's patience is impressive. He talks about subjective/objective poker approaches, uses the term several times. Then she asks after about the 8th time Pete uses the terms, what's the difference between the two.. I would have shut off the stream and bailed after that. Absolute legend poker coach. Her answers indicate an extreme lack of understanding in certain poker situations, but his patience with her was absolutely legendary. Very impressed on the coaching side.. not a very deeply thoughtful student, and no blame towards him of her results. Poker requires obedience to the truth and is an equalizer to human bias. Loved the bull vs spider analogy. Kudos to the student for the courage to put herself under scrutiny like this, and I hope she overcomes some of her bad processes. Poker isn't for everyone though, at least as a profession. No hate intended, just an honest take. ❤
Tough to end on a downswing. However, there was lots of progress made and the series was awesome. Excited to see who or what's next!
Been following for a quite while now; have commented on a few videos. Jess has promise for sure…
I would really like to be your next student
I think showing these coaching stories where it doesn't make Pete look like a good coach is more influential to me than him sharing hundreds of success stories, like all his students are zillionaires after his courses and coaching. I dig the transparency and honesty more than you can likely imagine Pete. Kudos to you!
Jess, you are the best!!! Keeo Going!!!
You're talking about 99 as if that would have been a bad call but even knowing this hand we should call because pot odds :)
Maybe I'm weak, but this spot with AQs imo played perfectly and on the river snap call. When I see a 1/3 bet on a board with two fd, it's really hard for me to bet an opponent on a set or two pair. Much more often I'll give him 78 or worse fd there, and a raise on the turn will give us extra value from them. (which he might just surrender on the river)
For the hand at 17:00 min I would say our equity really depends on the shoving fishs tendency but I would not be happy to call: I would say we win like 33% of the time, losing to some Ah and Kh and winning against some Jh and Th (which are fewer combos imo). And vs the caller something like 20%, Idk i feel like a reg could fold Th vs this overbet with someone left to act. I dont know where to improve from there (Am I that nitty ? Probably not Cause I still can't fold good hands vs raises turn or river)
Maybe I'm wrong but i think Jess's biggest problem is she wants to play and has natural understanding and good amount of study so she does ok. But jess doesn't study near enough almost every episode jess said i didn't study or i only watched videos
"poker is actually a lot more like an academice exercise",keep going jess!
I enjoy these series because you can hear how people think and see if you have the same problems or exploit other people with the same problems. I haven't watched all of the series , but I've watched the first 4-5 episodes and the last one and you always had selected hands so i wonder if it is possible that Jess has other problems which you couldn't see in the selected hands and this is one of the reasons for the downswing? You said you've watched her streams so I assume you should know her game better
No personal offense to Jess. Im not arguing that she didnt learn anything or didnt improve. She clearly had a downswing and breaking even at this rake would still be better than what the vast majority of the playerpool is achieving.
But I think she is not really suited for your style of coaching.
These Videos remind me of a debate between Charlie Carrel and some highstakes GTO Pro from a few years ago. Charlie took the worst of it throughout the debate because he had no real counter to the simple argument "how would you know the appropiate exploits if you dont study theory?"
But Charlie did make one valid point: If you take an inexperienced recreational player that lacks a structured thought process and coach him/her in a theory oriented way their game might become even worse. Or their thought process becomes so messy that they get stuck early on while trying to move up in stakes.
This is a bit how I feel with Jess. You didnt focus solely on GTO, but you tried teaching here quite some theory. And all of this stuff combined seems to overwhelm her. Too many concepts at once - Solver output, Range Composition, EV, Equity of specific hands, theory of underbluffed and overbluffed spots, blockers, unblockers, exploits etc. Her thought process is all over the place - even more so compared to the beginning of the series (eventhough she likely is a better player now).
I think that she would have needed simpler advice at the beginning and not all of those different concepts thrown at her so quickly.
I also think that Women probably require a different coaching approach than Men. Im mainly drawing from memories of some small stake home games but Im sure that you could make a systematic argument for it. Women tend to think differently about the game (for example inhibiting a much higher aversion against bluffing and risk in general). This is a politically incorrect opinion but I believe it to be true.
Thanks for your insight. I think I agree with a lot of this but, I will push back on a few things.
1. Very often a student's game has to get worse before it can get better. This is the nature of growth. There is sometimes no creation without distruction. When this happens, if we take a snapshot in the midterm we might say 'wow this player has become worse' but once you've laid the proper foundations you really open up the scope for drastic improvment and then in the long-term things can REALLY get better.
2. I don't think there's a substitute for learning theory. You either do it and build from there or you place a severe cap on how good you're ever going to get, both exploitatively and theoretically.
3. I would go as far to say that limiting complexity in the short-term actually harms the student a lot going forward. In the Carrot Poker School we dive in hard. Are people overhwelmed at first? Yes. Do people who make it through the school think it's by far the best thing they've ever done for their game, also yes. You might have to suffer a bit along the way in this game. Smooth sailing just isn't a thing for anybod learning poker and nor should it be.
4. I think being risk adverse is a natural human instinct and it impedes the progress of around 8-9/10 players who are grinding these stakes in a major way. Are women more risk adverse than men in poker over a large sample? I'm not sure, but most people I've taught have suffered from this in a massive way and 95% of them have been men.
I can say the same in that I agree with a lot of this ;-)
1. Agree
2. Partly agree. In the long run there is no substitute but for certain players at certain stages it might be too early to learn theory (or at least to learn it as deeply as your coaching style aspires). My argument was more like that DEEP theory plus all those human concepts attached to it plus exploitative thoughts were too much at once for Jess
3. Disagree. For some (I would think most people) your approach works, for others it doesnt. Just because it works on average doesnt make it the best method for everyone. If you instead teach someone simplified theory then that player should be able to organically ask and answer the right questions as time passes by - thereby diving deeper into theory driven by his own curiosity. For some this might be by far the best way to learn. If you are not driven to learn more than the simple guidelines you were once taught then its not per se the coaches fault, but more likely the player is just not cut out to be a pro.
4.) Agree
Personally, I would say : Most important is learning Common Sense, the "Two Plus Two" 😉 , in Poker: Otherwise completely outdated stuff like the Sklansky were actually quite good at teaching it. - "Structured thought process" is actually a very good way to put it. - Most people learn the easiest from the General to the Specific. And, in Jess's case, at least some point could be made that her foundations are still not exactly water-tight. (Seen e.g. in the first hand of the video, against two random and terrible fishes. ) In Chess, students start out with learning how the pieces work, learn about the importance of the Centre and quick development. Not with a concrete line up to move 25 in the Ruy Lopez. - Or: Alfred North Whitehead's ( wrote Principa Mathematica with co-author Bertrand Russell) "systematic" approach to teaching was giving the necessary tools, that enable and enhance pattern recognition, to solve a multitude of problems , not teaching easily forgettable specific problems, like it is very common practice in modern education.
@@CarrotCornerPoker Gotta go deep in the comments, you occasionally find a Carrot Gem.
can anyone do better than negative 2bb per 100 on GG over the long term? Isn't the rake 11 bb per 100 once include the bad bead jackpot?
100% folding the q of hearts on the turn. They didn't even talk about the str8 flush. Also super deep stacked.
Go Jess!! ❤
Will be honest here, and will immediately caveat that I'm only 16 minutes into the video - I can feel a tonal shift in this episode compared to previous. I think your feelings are really on show here Pete and you're maybe being a little heavy handed with a lot of the "advice" you're giving Jess. There's brutal feedback (a series I love) and then there's being really brutal to the point of just making your point unneccesarily aggressive. While I'm writing this you even mentioned being "really harsh", but from a viewer's perpsective the atmosphere of this video is negative enough to warrant me to not want to continue watching, and that's not something I've felt before watching your videos. Maybe a bit of a niche criticism, but to me it seems like Jess' results have probed some internal worries that this will have a material impact on the goodwill you've generated as a coach - and maybe you already have information that is consistent with this analysis. But coming from someone consistently thinking about becoming a CPS member, this is a side of you that turns me off following through. And don't get me wrong, I completely agree with the logic you put in front of Jess, and I'm not assuming Jess isn't "tough enough" to take this tough love approach; I just want to put across a viewer's perspective (and a potential buyer in YOU what is ultimately a product you are selling) on watching this - one of my least favourite videos you've put out this year.
On the upside, I wouldn't take the time to write this if I didn't think you considered what your viewers think - something I really value in any content creator. And knowing you enough from your videos, even if you don't completely agree with me, I have some reasonable assurance that you will take this on board in a non-zero capacity. And as always, looking forward to what you put out in future!
Thanks for taking the time to write this. You’re right that I do take viewer feedback on board. I really hope this didn’t come across as too aggressive. When I Jess and I know each other pretty well by now and before we stated recording I told her I was going to try something a bit different as an attempt to reach her on a different level to the normal logical one. I had a theory that there was far from a non zero chance that me being super blunt and direct and throwing in less light hearted suff might jolt something in her subconscious that things really had to change. If I overshot this and came across as aggressive then that’s my mistake. You’re right that I knew Jess could handle me being this way especially with the forewarning. The part I disagree with is that I wasn’t angry or insecure while making this video at all. I recorded my views on the result of the series when I shot the intro. What you saw here was me trying a different approach in the hope that it might get through on a deeper level to the student.
@@CarrotCornerPoker I'm gonna be honest too. This is how you teach and coach on a high level.I was always skeptical about coaching/coaches, this is the first time I really want to get coached.Not crapiing around, straight and clear, respectful and really giving. I wish you could take me up as a student. So here, right now to different opinions from 2 different viewers, I wanted to balance out OP here, because I thought you did amazing with Jess.
@@CarrotCornerPokerYeah, this video was by far the best, most direct feedback I've ever seen and personally I loved it. I even timestamped some of what you said and shared it around. I don't think you were being too negative I think you were being 100% brutally honest and I have immense respect for that. Personally I think this was the best video I've seen from you, so clearly this one person can't speak for everyone. I've never been more confident in you as a coach before seeing you put this level of true passion into what you're teaching. Big respect.
He wasn't nearly brutal enough! She's making the same mistakes he's already gone over multiple times in previous episodes.
I sat and re-watched a few episodes of "Losing to Cruising" earlier in the week, so it's fresh in my memory, and I have a few opinions on "Stauling to Mauling".
I do feel like Pete was much harsher with Mark throughout, and that Mark benefitted from some of those early home truths.
At times, I felt like Jess wasn't quite grasping some of the concepts and was simply nodding along/agreeing with Pete, for whatever reason.
In fact, I think it's telling that there were a couple of examples of her pushing back and/or saying she didn't understand something in this very last video - and I haven't heard much of that at all throughout the series. I think Pete's harsher tone in this video brought that out, and that's a good thing!
I see this often in my day job as a salesperson. The solutions are technical/complex, and customers never want to appear as if they don't understand something, particularly in-front of their colleagues. Its my job to recognise that and address it.
If you miss when they're confused/not getting it/paying lip-service to you, you've no chance of influencing them in a positive manner.
So I actually don't think Pete was too harsh personally, I actually think he was slightly too nice for too long!
Maybe it's the format of the series leading to a desire to move quickly through different concepts, for the sake of the viewers, but I think Jess could definitely have benefited from slowing down at times.
I say all this as someone who has done Pete's "Run It Once" course and watched every video he has done about 10 times...and still make the same mistakes over and over 😂😅
As I say, all totally my opinion, I'm certainly no poker crusher and Pete's coaching is generally absolutely outstanding!
The best poker coach out there
trueEVE is a forever strat. Thanks Jess.
good luck jess! im obv speaking for meself, but hands down best type of content i devoured about poker online! i hope there is a new student on horizon
It's never easy to win at poker
First of all, I love this channel and it's hard to tell how much I've learned from it, but I can't agree that this 44 spot is ev+.
First of all, on the bb sits short, he will go all in and we burned the money.
Secondly, we don't want to play for stacks in this spot, the truth is that we can often fall into a better set. (especially considering the cold calling player).
Third, rake.
I would really need to know that I have all monkeys in this hand to play this.
Jess is just a horrible poker player. No amount of coaching would help him.
@jessica_tee @carrotcornerpoker I don't want to upset anyone here but I think Jess had an extremely difficult task from the get-go. It's very hard to find the time to become good at poker when you are having to combine it with full-time work - and even more so if you're a parent as well. It's hard enough to win consistently at poker even if you aren't in full time work and are able to allocate 10+ hours a day to playing poker and studying it. Jess gave it her best shot but her task here essentially amounted to Mission Impossible: Online Poker 2023 Edition.
This is the real truth!
She's a breakeven player I imagine with a normal rakeback deal. Actually pretty good considering the other priorities she has.