Colour me unsurprised shandrax showed up to troll a sklansky thread.

I think I got some valid arguments.

It is true that the stream is kinda disappointing though. I expected to watch some sort of wizard doing his magic, but all I see is the man behind the curtain.

hey shandrax!

i watch David's stream and also saw his interview with Joey. i wish he would do a weekly vlog/podcast type thing talking about life. the best part of his insight is how careful he is with his words- he pauses and talks slowly to be precision perfect (no ambiguity), all of which are purposeful.

Channel deleted? Noooo! Come back Sklansky!

new url http://www.twitch.tv/twoplustwo_Sklansky

Could you provide a link to this interview with Joey?

Thanks

Makes two pair and then a straight flush in the same hand. #sklanskybucks

So thast's why I wasn't been notified.

His big mistake comes at 41:45. If you are 55% to win, you can always safely push all in, because post flop the money goes in (at least) 1:1.

Just imagine there was no money in the pot and you got a hand that wins in 55% of the time. You push all-in, the other guy calls and there you have it: You bet your money to win his money, so you are getting 1:1 and you are 55% to win. Now if there was money in the pot already, it can only make it sweeter for you and it can make calling correct for the other guy.

Isn't this just "Betting 101"?

Ok, it was a misunderstanding. He seems to be talking about a polarized situation, where the opponent bets a combination of nuts and air. Obviously you can only push if you are 55% against a specific hand (or his calling range for that matter), not 55% against his entire range of hands. In the latter case, your hand isn't that great anyways.

It should be stated, that this isn't betting on an uncertain event anymore, it is more like betting "after the race". You are basically 0% against almost half of his hands and 100% against the rest. That is why the figure of "55% to win" was rather misleading.

Where can we watch replays ? Anything on YouTube ?

http://www.twitch.tv/twoplustwo_sklansky

Btw, I am currently trying to figure out the following problem:

What does it tell us when David's stacksize is usually in the lower half? In other words, amongst the remaining players, he usually has a below average stacksize.

Now this doesn't imply that overall this style has a below average expectation, because we must not forget there are other guys who busted out already, but it certainly tells us that he doesn't exactly accumulate chips like crazy.

Last but not least, we shouldn't forget that he only has a below average stacksize until he busts out. In that case he has nothing to show for and unfortunately it seems to happen quite often before he reaches the bubble. While this is obviously only a small samplesize, it's clear that he is currently losing money and that probably at a rather alarming rate.

He did in fact have two final table appearances, but they both came from tournaments that he didn't stream through early and middle stages. Now isn't that weird? It somewhat reminds me of the Invisible Boy from the movie "Mystery Men", a superhero who could only become invisible if nobody was looking.

Anyways, in my humble opinion he should just play Sit&Go's. They don't take as long and they aren't that much of a longshot, so he gets a bigger samplesize and stable results much faster.

yeah, this is NLHE 101. you typically want to massage an opponent's bluff range, not break it.

Recency bias, sample size error, and typical MTT expectation. He doesn't go crazy during the re-buy period, and if his average finish is 20th out of 100 (which is very good), he would be expected to be below average after X# of bustouts until settling in to his 20th place expectation.

Even if true, you haven't provided an argument for why, and you basically contradicted yourself in this paragraph.

Considering he bets horses during his streams, you can't imagine that he plays poker when he's not streaming?? Edit: I misread. It's possible he plays worse when the camera is on, but it would take years to determine.

SNGs aren't as fun to play, or watch. It's not far-out to suggest he's not playing for the money (in totality) either .

It was meant to be as a collection of observations/facts and not as some sort of conclusion. It is a small sample-size, he is losing money and he is losing a lot of it.

The conclusion would be that this doesn't matter much, because small samples contain a lot of variance.

Yes, I have to admit that currently it only looks like he plays badly and gets punished for it. It is certainly too early for the final verdict. Still, I got a prediction...

This is a 2014 graph from an elite MTT grinder on Bovada:

Very nice, but did he play like David?

Is he not losing the same amount as 90% of the field who did not cash? Unless you've personally watched him play a few hundred mtts I don't know how you can possibly know how much he loses, if he's a losing player. You probably cant even know his roi within +/- 25%

David, could you please say something like " thanks for comming, have a good night" or something instead of insta clicking off stream? I think that would be appreciated by many. It just seems rude to just go black without extending the courtesy of even saying goodbye. Not trying to be a dick , but when you do that, it just doesnt feel right and tilts me a little.

You can't know anything for sure of course, but you can take an educated guess.

What would you think is the ROI for a player who is only playing the "top 10"-hands (~5%) for roughly 90 minutes after which he has to start flipping coins for his tournament life?

Don't forget to consider that part of the equation is, that this player never steals the blinds, never bluffs, never raises and always check-folds if he either misses the flop or if an overcard flops, never value bets on the river, and to make the list complete, he also folds top pair on the river to a bet.

I think the reason for this sort of play can be explained like this: He is scared to play post-flop, because he can't analyze the complexity of post-flop play in Hold'em to perfection.

Under this assumption it makes sense that he loves to play big pairs where can flop top set and concentrates his efforts mainly on developing all-in systems where there is no post-flop play at all.

Notice that all of his calculations are purely value based. For instance, he loves to analyze situations where the cards are face up. Folding equity doesn't play a role in any of his theories and that is exactly what is own game is lacking. He gives up a ton of folding equity and never tries to steal it back. That is why he is always scared of a raise behind him, but whenever he is in position himself, he never raises anyone.

I basicly agree with this, though it doensn't tilt me the way he does it really. He could even offer some sort of conclusion/synopsis/review of what went down or whatever. But what do I know?