Can you become a winning poker player in 30 days?

[Shells]

CardsChat Ambassador pros Collin Moshman and Katie Dozier, present “Become a Winning Poker Player in 30 Days” is a MasterClass-style seminar available for free to all CardsChat members. It's a version of a 'Poker Bootcamp' that members have been giving positive feedback.
(Links included in the article) [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
CardsChat Steps into Online Education with 30-Day Poker Course

 

[C_mac]

I doubt it. See the problem with these poker courses in my opinion is this:

While the rules of the game might be the same, the game is completely different based of different factors, and they never focus on that. For example the stakes you play. The micros are hard because people don't care as much about the money because it's a few bucks so they have these huge ranges, going all in sometimes on almost anything. 9 handed full ring is totally different then 6 max. All these pro's talk about "bankroll management". So if they're telling you to then start at the micros, but teaching you how to play at higher stakes, it makes no sense.

These course should be set up like "how to become a winning player at 6 max micros", and teach specifically that.

 

[Shells]

I doubt it. See the problem with these poker courses in my opinion is this:

While the rules of the game might be the same, the game is completely different based of different factors, and they never focus on that. For example the stakes you play. The micros are hard because people don't care as much about the money because it's a few bucks so they have these huge ranges, going all in sometimes on almost anything. 9 handed full ring is totally different then 6 max. All these pro's talk about "bankroll management". So if they're telling you to then start at the micros, but teaching you how to play at higher stakes, it makes no sense.

These course should be set up like "how to become a winning player at 6 max micros", and teach specifically that.

I'm wondering if you had a chance to look at the course at all. It's linked in the article but I will make it a bit easier and maybe you will take a look here just in case you haven't see it yet >>> https://www.cardschat.com/become-a-winning-poker-player/

 

[C_mac]

I check it out over the next few days.

 

[C_mac]

So just looking at the youtube clip, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about. To me, that's way to in depth and extensive for someone playing in 6 max micros. That's a lot of work and reading to see if you can improve in games that cost a buck or two. Also, again, to me it's implied that it's designed for full ring games as most courses are, but 6 max is completely different.

 

[alienat3d]

I doubt it. See the problem with these poker courses in my opinion is this:

While the rules of the game might be the same, the game is completely different based of different factors, and they never focus on that. For example the stakes you play. The micros are hard because people don't care as much about the money because it's a few bucks so they have these huge ranges, going all in sometimes on almost anything. 9 handed full ring is totally different then 6 max. All these pro's talk about "bankroll management". So if they're telling you to then start at the micros, but teaching you how to play at higher stakes, it makes no sense.

These course should be set up like "how to become a winning player at 6 max micros", and teach specifically that.

First of all, the basics of poker are all the same, no matter which limit you'll be playing, you just have to know them.
Obviously, for the higher stakes, basic knowledge is not enough and you have to improve further and further. But if you're already playing on high stakes profitably over long distance, it's not a course for you. You might want to write your own book and make your own course then.

Now you saying: "The micros are hard because people don't care as much about the money because it's a few bucks so they have these huge ranges, going all in sometimes on almost anything."

I hope you're kidding, right? If micros are hard, then poker is probably not a game for you to invest your money in... I mean seriously if you saying that you can't adapt to and exploit the bad players, who make mistakes a lot, how you can play profitably against the better players?
The bad players are the bread and butter for every limit! And you have to learn how to extract chips/money from them at first!

Because the higher limit you will be playing, the less bad and more good players there will be. It's pretty obvious, right? And if on micro you are sitting alone, or let's say with one another good player surrounded by bad players. On the higher limits it's like 7-8 good players hunting 1-2 bad ones. It's a reality. So my good advice to you, to concentrate on how to play with bad players at first and try to avoid the good one!

And only after you get the basics mastered you can go in-depth and specialize yourself in 6max, 9max, turbos, PKO etc. Learning advanced ICM, GTO, exploiting strategies etc. But you have to be already very experienced and mature player for that. You should be beating micros at least and being break-even on lows, to get to the next level and learning more advanced and complicated stuff... Otherwise you'll be simply overwhelmed with any advanced course or info. And this is what you need this course for, to master the basics and become a micros-lows crusher.
This is a really amazing and super useful course for the majority of players that can make out of losing player a winning solid one. And it's for free!!

But of course, there are some players who already know most of it and who have mastered the basics already, but even for them, it's not a waste of time to repeat some of that stuff, that could be forgotten over the years.

 

[Shells]

So just looking at the youtube clip, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about. To me, that's way to in depth and extensive for someone playing in 6 max micros. That's a lot of work and reading to see if you can improve in games that cost a buck or two. Also, again, to me it's implied that it's designed for full ring games as most courses are, but 6 max is completely different.

Like a lot of things whether poker or not, there are some things that are just not for us. Thank you for your input.

 

[nimburkx]

in 30 days I guess you can win sit and go less than 1$ when you enter higher cost they are higher qualified players with professionals from around the world that are making money through poker for living they are sitting with several kinds of software and analyzing every bet and move you made. They read every step through your moves during the game and you will loose again and again be ready that will not be easy to lose so much that you do not imagine on your start of the journey to be poker player.

 

[fastfash25]

No! Plain and simple. The game is too complex. You may luckily win a tournament or two. But to play against people who have been playing for years.....no way. I been playing 20 years and still learning. Experience counts tremendously

 

[C_mac]

Like a lot of things whether poker or not, there are some things that are just not for us.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean.

 

[C_mac]

First of all, the basics of poker are all the same, no matter which limit you'll be playing, you just have to know them.
Obviously, for the higher stakes, basic knowledge is not enough and you have to improve further and further. But if you're already playing on high stakes profitably over long distance, it's not a course for you. You might want to write your own book and make your own course then.

Now you saying: "The micros are hard because people don't care as much about the money because it's a few bucks so they have these huge ranges, going all in sometimes on almost anything."

I hope you're kidding, right? If micros are hard, then poker is probably not a game for you to invest your money in... I mean seriously if you saying that you can't adapt to and exploit the bad players, who make mistakes a lot, how you can play profitably against the better players?
The bad players are the bread and butter for every limit! And you have to learn how to extract chips/money from them at first!

Because the higher limit you will be playing, the less bad and more good players there will be. It's pretty obvious, right? And if on micro you are sitting alone, or let's say with one another good player surrounded by bad players. On the higher limits it's like 7-8 good players hunting 1-2 bad ones. It's a reality. So my good advice to you, to concentrate on how to play with bad players at first and try to avoid the good one!

And only after you get the basics mastered you can go in-depth and specialize yourself in 6max, 9max, turbos, PKO etc. Learning advanced ICM, GTO, exploiting strategies etc. But you have to be already very experienced and mature player for that. You should be beating micros at least and being break-even on lows, to get to the next level and learning more advanced and complicated stuff... Otherwise you'll be simply overwhelmed with any advanced course or info. And this is what you need this course for, to master the basics and become a micros-lows crusher.
This is a really amazing and super useful course for the majority of players that can make out of losing player a winning solid one. And it's for free!!

But of course, there are some players who already know most of it and who have mastered the basics already, but even for them, it's not a waste of time to repeat some of that stuff, that could be forgotten over the years.

Seems like I may have offended you. Did you design this course?

 

[Shells]

Like a lot of things whether poker or not, there are some things that are just not for us. Thank you for your input.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean.

It means, we don't all learn the same way or we could be beyond whatever class is offered or just simply not ready for it. In this case, you had made a decision that this poker class (program) is not what you need or what you are looking for. It was a statement - nothing else. It was not meant to offend you if it did.

Some programs/courses are just not for everyone.

 

[C_mac]

It means, we don't all learn the same way or we could be beyond whatever class is offered or just simply not ready for it. In this case, you had made a decision that this poker class (program) is not what you need or what you are looking for. It was a statement - nothing else. It was not meant to offend you if it did.

Some programs/courses are just not for everyone.

I'll be honest, I would love for you to disprove me. I was just making the point, that many people will make, that for example a limit game is completely different then no limit. A cash game is completely different then a non. So I don't know how one course could be good for all games. My point was simply that poker games vary, and courses/lessons might best if they were suited towards specific games. I don't think you can design one course and say "this make you a winning poker player in 30 days no matter which type of game your playing".

 

[alienat3d]

Seems like I may have offended you. Did you design this course?

Oh no, not at all! You probably got me wrong there. I just disagreed with the few sentences of your post and tried to provide the reasons why am I thinking they not correct, following common sense, my knowledge, and my experience. No hard feelings, just a friendly discussion.
I also disagreed only with a part of your post tho.

However I also agreed with another part of your post about that, after you've learned the basic fundamentals of poker, you have to specialize in a specific format and to learn much more, than that course provides, in order to reach high limits and stay a winning player. I also mentioned it above, but you probably had missed it.

I also have nothing to do with that course, except that I like it and I respect the authors, who have made it, the reputable coaches and poker players with significant results, and also with much experience at coaching and authorship of poker books.

 

[C_mac]

Oh no, not at all! You probably got me wrong there. I just disagreed with the few sentences of your post and tried to provide the reasons why am I thinking they not correct, following common sense, my knowledge, and my experience. No hard feelings, just a friendly discussion.
I also disagreed only with a part of your post tho.

However I also agreed with another part of your post about that, after you've learned the basic fundamentals of poker, you have to specialize in a specific format and to learn much more, than that course provides, in order to reach high limits and stay a winning player. I also mentioned it above, but you probably had missed it.

I also have nothing to do with that course, except that I like it and I respect the authors, who have made it, the reputable coaches and poker players with significant results, and also with much experience at coaching and authorship of poker books.

Well if that's the case I do appreciate a good debate/discussion. I'm not sure how good of a player you are or what level you play. so maybe you haven't played the micros in a while. The micros can even be harder to win then the higher levels. It's literally a gong show some games where most of players just keep going all in, and only the top two get paid. So you can play tight and let them knock each other out, but eventually you get forced into having to call hands you shouldn't or else your stack just gets to depleted.

Re-reading your post, I do agree with a lot what you said, just not everything. As you said, I actually would love to design my own course on low levels that's very simple and basic. Right now though, I'm pretty much a break even player so I'm not qualified to give advice. Having that said, I'm pretty hot right now because I've tried to tweek a few areas of my game and seems to be having an impact.

 

[alienat3d]

Well if that's the case I do appreciate a good debate/discussion. I'm not sure how good of a player you are or what level you play. so maybe you haven't played the micros in a while. The micros can even be harder to win then the higher levels. It's literally a gong show some games where most of players just keep going all in, and only the top two get paid. So you can play tight and let them knock each other out, but eventually you get forced into having to call hands you shouldn't or else your stack just gets to depleted.

Re-reading your post, I do agree with a lot what you said, just not everything. As you said, I actually would love to design my own course on low levels that's very simple and basic. Right now though, I'm pretty much a break even player so I'm not qualified to give advice. Having that said, I'm pretty hot right now because I've tried to tweek a few areas of my game and seems to be having an impact.

Yes, I totally understand what you're talking about. But let's not exaggerate it tho.
Not everyone and not in every game they just keep going all-in. At least not in Regular MTT/SNG, that I've been playing. Although I escaped the micros myself already, I actually grinded up from scratch and spent a lot of time building up my bankroll from the lowest limits without making deposits. It wasn't easy.

And I still play them from time to time even now as part of the "Group Challenge" project we have here on Cardschat, where we trying to build up a bankroll from $10 as a group, sharing our winnings and loss, as if it were one person bankroll. So I think I'm pretty up-to-date what's going on there still.


On the one hand, you're absolutely right, that most of the players in there have way too loose ranges, that makes it harder to figure what sort of hands they could have, as they basically play any suited cards, even 27. On another hand it compensates a lot with their ridiculous post-flop play. Most of them are just like an open book, when you look at their betting patterns and you can precisely say if they have it or not in the most spots.
They do too many mistakes paying you too much when drawing, overplaying their top-pairs, trying to bluff, where it makes no sense and playing silly their monster hands, losing huge amounts of value by that.

But I also shall agree with that, you need to bring a different strategy there. As a good player, who learned how to adapt to those "monkey play" you will have a huge edge on them and a pretty nice win-rate too. However, there is a big spoon of tar in a barrel of honey, when we talk about micros and it's a very high rake, which makes them not so profitable in the long run, as they could be.

Anyways, they are only good for training, to get some poker experience, to learn how to extract chips/money from different kinds of bad players. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone staying for too long there, it's just not profitable about "$ per hour" stat and kind of a waste of time for a good player. Therefore every winning player should climb the limits, as soon as his bankroll affords it. Otherwise, there is no progress, but just stagnation.

 

[C_mac]

Yes, I totally understand what you're talking about. But let's not exaggerate it tho.
Not everyone and not in every game they just keep going all-in. At least not in Regular MTT/SNG, that I've been playing. Although I escaped the micros myself already, I actually grinded up from scratch and spent a lot of time building up my bankroll from the lowest limits without making deposits. It wasn't easy.

And I still play them from time to time even now as part of the "Group Challenge" project we have here on Cardschat, where we trying to build up a bankroll from $10 as a group, sharing our winnings and loss, as if it were one person bankroll. So I think I'm pretty up-to-date what's going on there still.


On the one hand, you're absolutely right, that most of the players in there have way too loose ranges, that makes it harder to figure what sort of hands they could have, as they basically play any suited cards, even 27. On another hand it compensates a lot with their ridiculous post-flop play. Most of them are just like an open book, when you look at their betting patterns and you can precisely say if they have it or not in the most spots.
They do too many mistakes paying you too much when drawing, overplaying their top-pairs, trying to bluff, where it makes no sense and playing silly their monster hands, losing huge amounts of value by that.

But I also shall agree with that, you need to bring a different strategy there. As a good player, who learned how to adapt to those "monkey play" you will have a huge edge on them and a pretty nice win-rate too. However, there is a big spoon of tar in a barrel of honey, when we talk about micros and it's a very high rake, which makes them not so profitable in the long run, as they could be.

Anyways, they are only good for training, to get some poker experience, to learn how to extract chips/money from different kinds of bad players. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone staying for too long there, it's just not profitable about "$ per hour" stat and kind of a waste of time for a good player. Therefore every winning player should climb the limits, as soon as his bankroll affords it. Otherwise, there is no progress, but just stagnation.

I play on pokerstars, and the rake is a killer in the micros. If and when I'm seeing a profitable win rate, I agree, have to get out as soon as you can. I'm just still to up and down but the last few weeks I think I've made some improvements so I'll give it another month to see if this is the read deal.

 

[1nsomn1a]

I doubt it. See the problem with these poker courses in my opinion is this:

While the rules of the game might be the same, the game is completely different based of different factors, and they never focus on that. For example the stakes you play. The micros are hard because people don't care as much about the money because it's a few bucks so they have these huge ranges, going all in sometimes on almost anything. 9 handed full ring is totally different then 6 max. All these pro's talk about "bankroll management". So if they're telling you to then start at the micros, but teaching you how to play at higher stakes, it makes no sense.

These course should be set up like "how to become a winning player at 6 max micros", and teach specifically that.

I think abс poker is enough for microlimits

 

[C_mac]

I think abс poker is enough for microlimits

You think wrong.

 

[zinzir]

"Can you become a winning poker player in 30 days?"

No, not by reading a book or attending a seminar. The only way a losing player could turn into a winning one in such a short period of time is by receiving a head transplant

 

[C_mac]

Yes, I totally understand what you're talking about. But let's not exaggerate it tho.

Nobody is exaggerating anything. In the 6 max micros you will have games like that. I just played 5 of us left at the table any everyone went all in. I had AA and busted of course, to another player who also had AA, but he had ace of heart and hit flush. In fact I didn't come in second because someone else also hit flush hearts. Anyway, point is the micros can be like the wild west and nobody is exaggerating anything.

"Can you become a winning poker player in 30 days?"

No, not by reading a book or attending a seminar. The only way a losing player could turn into a winning one in such a short period of time is by receiving a head transplant

You hit the nail on the head. Honestly, the name itself puts me off the course. Sounds like one of those marketing scams. Sounds like a Tony Robbins infomercial. Even with a ton of practice and skill, it takes a looooong time to become a winning player. 30 days just isn't possible. If they want people to take the course, give a better name/headline.

Something that sounds more reasonable and genuine.

 

[crankmuppet]

"Can you become a winning poker player in 30 days?"

No, not by reading a book or attending a seminar. The only way a losing player could turn into a winning one in such a short period of time is by receiving a head transplant

The course is not titled "If you are a losing player, read this to become a winning player in 30 days".

Important extracts from the news article;

“Our intended audience is the player who needs some help on key concepts like pot odds and equity, but they love poker and want to learn,” Moshman says.
​

“The biggest weakness of beginning players is becoming overwhelmed with how to go about improving,” Dozier says. “That’s part of why we made this course, because we feel it answers the question of how to become a winning poker player.”
​

“Our goal is to have passionate players become winners in their home games, local casino daily tournaments, micro-stakes online games, or anywhere they enjoy playing the most,” Moshman says.
​

I'm sure even experienced, winning players might benefit from this refresher on fundamentals and discussions of advanced play.

You hit the nail on the head. Honestly, the name itself puts me off the course. Sounds like one of those marketing scams. Sounds like a Tony Robbins infomercial. Even with a ton of practice and skill, it takes a looooong time to become a winning player. 30 days just isn't possible. If they want people to take the course, give a better name/headline.

Something that sounds more reasonable and genuine.

Marketing scam? Has CardsChat asked you to pay for this course?

This is free course, curated by two proven, winning, poker pros, and financed by CardsChat for the community's benefit.

Such negativity, surely, cannot be good for your game or your life.

Perhaps complete the course and then provide your opinions.

 

[Shells]

You hit the nail on the head. Honestly, the name itself puts me off the course. Sounds like one of those marketing scams. Sounds like a Tony Robbins infomercial. Even with a ton of practice and skill, it takes a looooong time to become a winning player. 30 days just isn't possible. If they want people to take the course, give a better name/headline.

Something that sounds more reasonable and genuine.

Sure we are marketing however we are marketing at no cost to you and only if you want to use the resource. CardsChat is full of free stuff and it's up to each individual to read or listen to any information provided but only if they want to.

If you have found the course is not helpful to you and you wish to make a few adjustments to your game, why not shoot a question to Collin and Katie (who also just happen to be the creators of the course)

https://www.cardschat.com/forum/tournament-poker-59/ask-collin-moshman-katie-dozier-about-429017//

You wanted reasons why you should try the course, I for one, am not going to tell you to try the free course - I can only suggest you could try the free course.

 

[C_mac]

S

You wanted reasons why you should try the course, I for one, am not going to tell you to try the free course - I can only suggest you could try the free course.

Actually I didn't. You asked the question "Can you become a winning poker player in 30 days?"

So I just answered the question by giving my thoughts and opinions on the matter.

The course is not titled "If you are a losing player, read this to become a winning player in 30 days".

Important extracts from the news article;

“Our intended audience is the player who needs some help on key concepts like pot odds and equity, but they love poker and want to learn,” Moshman says.
​

“The biggest weakness of beginning players is becoming overwhelmed with how to go about improving,” Dozier says. “That’s part of why we made this course, because we feel it answers the question of how to become a winning poker player.”
​

“Our goal is to have passionate players become winners in their home games, local casino daily tournaments, micro-stakes online games, or anywhere they enjoy playing the most,” Moshman says.
​

I'm sure even experienced, winning players might benefit from this refresher on fundamentals and discussions of advanced play.



Marketing scam? Has CardsChat asked you to pay for this course?

This is free course, curated by two proven, winning, poker pros, and financed by CardsChat for the community's benefit.

Such negativity, surely, cannot be good for your game or your life.

Perhaps complete the course and then provide your opinions.

I never said it was a scam. I said the title of it "sounds like a Tony Robbins infomercial". All those titles of "you can do XZY in 30 days" usually end up being bad reads, so I simply suggested a more genuine title.

Also, your talking about "such negativity". Perhaps your incapable of having meaningful debatable discussions?

I never started the thread. As mentioned above, they asked the question/started the thread and I simply gave my feedback/opinion. I promise you, if you conducted a poll with 100,000 poker players asking if they think it's possible to become a winning player in 30 days, probably at least half would answer no if not more.

If they aren't looking honest feedback, then these questions/threads shouldn't be started.

Look, I can tell you I love the fact they are doing this for free and trying help people, but that doesn't mean you can't give your opinion or feedback in order to challenge them or re-think how they could do a better job.


At some point, I'll take the course, and if it doesn't work, did you then want me to come back and give my opinion with "no you absolutely can't as I took the course and it didn't work". Does that work for you??

 

[zinzir]

You hit the nail on the head. Honestly, the name itself puts me off the course. Sounds like one of those marketing scams. Sounds like a Tony Robbins infomercial. Even with a ton of practice and skill, it takes a looooong time to become a winning player. 30 days just isn't possible. If they want people to take the course, give a better name/headline.

Something that sounds more reasonable and genuine.

My initial post was just an answer to this thread's title “Can you become a winning player in 30 days?”, and it applied to any book or seminar in general, not to the CC 30 day course in particular.
But since you brought it up, I agree with you, it was an unfortunate way reach an audience for the simple reason it's a free course. Using a sales pitch to advertise something you give for free is actually putting people off. For example, try to give something to a stranger or even a friend, but go out of your way telling him how good the article is, using one or more over the top statements. Afterwards ask the person how he felt about taking the article, and I bet the answer will be “You tried so hard to convince me to take it, and I couldn't stop wondering what was wrong with it.”
Fortunately, the course is nothing like the title. I almost finished it, and in my opinion it is way above expectations. Good, solid information presented in an easy to read format, and excellent videos (with few exceptions) with plenty of discussed hand examples, and even quizzes. So if you you want to read a poker book or take a course, this is by far the best free version available on the World Wide Web.
I actually intend to write an honest review after I finish the course. Until then, I will say that a more accurate description of the seminar would be: “Learn how winning players make their money” instead of “Become a winning poker player in 30 days”.
PS: Friends, please don't be quick to label what I said as “hate” or “negativity”. It is neither of those. It is an honest personal opinion that happens to not be of the praising type, about the title and the title only. Thank you Cardschat of making this good book and seminar happen and for providing it for free to all of us, members!