Originally Posted by Irexes
I'm puzzled about how you draw a distinction between mom and pop in a room talking about it and someone on the phone or MSN.
Not saying that it's right or wrong, but I don't see the difference between someone in the room or remote.
Originally Posted by zachvac
Rex already asked this, but what's the difference?
That's your opinion. Say I was playing you and got Phil Ivey to coach me. I'm sure you'd think that was unfair. What if instead Phil Ivey sat with you and played against you? Which would be worse?
It's pretty common knowledge. Videos are released on a ton of training sites with sweats, and the sites have full knowledge of them. If they wanted to ban them they could. But they don't.
So I agree with you, know that you could be playing more than one person at each computer. Personally I don't have a problem with it so I'll play. Apparently you do and won't play online. That's the beauty of it.
It was more of a generalization to avoid the comments that would say "I'm not going to tell my wife to stay out of the room while I play", or "my son turns 18 next month and I'm teaching him to play, what's wrong with that?".
Sweat sessions at live tables started many years ago, long before online poker was popular. As a courtesy, it was also with the agreement of all players at the table
. At the rail is where all other non-players should be. Even in live pro/circuit events (or those being filmed for the media), a player is not permitted to go to the rail to consult his coach during a hand. They can go to the rail after the hand is over to get advice on what they might/should have done, but not during the hand.
Most of what I have seen online is cash players looking for 'interactive' advice and 'partners' via remote media. In Zach's example with Ivey as a coach, if he were assisting decisions, yes, it would be unfair, imo. I sat down to play Zach, not Zach (and secretly Ivey). If I sat with Ivey, I would know what I was in for and who I sat down against.
Taking that one step further as it relates to poker, if I sat down to play HU, just me and Zach, that's what I would expect. I would not expect it to be me against Zach and
Ivey secretly helping him make the decisions. If you told me straight out that it would be me against the two of you, I wouldn't sit, unless it was simply for the thrill of the action and challenge, but it would be with
my knowledge and agreement.
Nothing at all wrong with the videos you mention. It's actually a lot more personal and productive in many cases than simply reading a book. You get to see it happen - AFTER it has happened. An excellent tool.
Yes, that is the beauty of it. I do play online, but only with funds I have won online. No deposits at risk. My pocket cash goes on the tables where I can see the players live and the competition. Fortunately, I'm in an area where I can do that.
Originally Posted by premierplayer
I wasnt talking about collusion, quit with the paranoia
Wasn't meant to be 'paranoia'. In the OP and the title of the thread, you asked for a 'partner
' or coach. A coach to improve your skills post-hands is perfectly fine. A 'partner' to be interactive in hands is not, imo. Poker is not a team sport. 'Teams' that have been created and promoted on the media are not permitted in any way to bring their 'team' to the tables with them.