I really appreciate that 2+2 has twitch poker streams on the right of page. If they are going to ?sponsor? / ask David Sklansky to stream live, I suggest a forum or thread dedicated to streams and offer watchers the opportunity to ask 'QUESTIONS' in that thread, in addition to the chat stream.
It seemed that trying to read the CHAT while playing poker (and keeping track of Lyric or Sue) distracted Dave from actually watching the game. Not noticing that a guy has been raising 40% of hands pre-flop to get their monster stack seems like a leak.

My question-> How much equity are you willing to give up, rather than call a hand that will eliminate you if you lose. (pre-flop, flop, turn and river) How does this change during stages of the tournament (rebuy, middle, bubble, final table) as well as stack size (BB <10, 10-30, 30+).

You asked at least eleven questions. Good luck getting an answer.

David wants to interact with the chat. He is not grinding out a living playing $27 tournaments on WSOP.com and I'm quite confident he isn't all that concerned if he isn't playing optimally due to reading the chat.

He's back with a picture of Mason on his chest.
http://www.twitch.tv/twoplustwo_poker

Lol

I loved this show, so much drama.

I wonder if Sklansky's bird talks?

Check out this video of a cuckatoo that imitates a couple arguing, lol.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=226_1422855440

So funny, sounded like muttley from whacky races in parts to me.

That parrot is a ****ing bastard!

David is streaming now and making a couple of... Unorthodox plays.

Originally I wanted to write something funny about this stream, some sort of joke. It finally dawned to me that I can't. This isn't comedy and it isn't really funny at all, it feels more like watching an episode from the Twillight Zone.

That was a good show.

Absolutely.

David is on twitch.tv

Let me answer this one for you. That's the beauty about Game Theory. You can completely ignore the table. There is absolutely no reason to bother with ranges, position, folding equity, balance and other fallacies.

Just stick to playing the top 5% of your hands, fold to any sort of aggression and switch to The System(c) once your stacksize falls below 10 BB. If you get lucky and win a coinflip you will be back in the race again.

Last but not least, folding and stalling is +EV in tournaments, because others may go broke while you are snoozing

After watching the last episode I finally understood the reason for all of this. I think David wants to show in practice that the tournament concept of waiting for premium hands is superior to Arnold Snyder's concept of splashing around with chips and playing chicken with people before the blinds go through the roof. Maybe that is not the original intention for this stream, but this is what it really comes down to after all.

David has said many times the reason he streams on Twitch is to convert video game players into poker players.

My only question is where he expects them to flock to. It's not like they can depo $20 onto a site like Stars anymore. At least in the States...

Maybe he's bullish on online poker being regulated in many of states in the near future.

The goal of Poker is to extract money from fools.

Step one is to show them how easy it is to win.
Step two is to teach them some basics.
Step three is to ask them why they don't try it themselves.
Step four is to collect their money.

It is hard to tell if that stream is supposed to show beginners a dumbed down foolproof way to win money or if that is how David really thinks how tournaments should be played. The problem is that he is playing according to certain principles that he has been advocating for years.

Every Sit&Go player knows that you need to make the top 3 an awful lot in order to overcome the vigorish. Waiting for aces and playing coinflips for your tournament life is certainly not the way to do it.

Having said that, I am convinced that there are certain simplified models based on certain assumptions where this strategy is indeed optimal. Unfortunately the problem is that these models are too simplified to lead to meaningful conclusions about real poker. The AKQ-game is just one example.

Aparently it is never too late to learn something from worldclass players. In the 9th of Feb session David plays a bit of PLO after busting out with a set against a straight in the tournament. He claims that playing fit or fold is correct in PLO.

Well, I thought of these games as somewhat of a black box. There are four betting rounds and it doesn't really matter what the winning conditions of the specific game are if you get your frequencies right.

I always thought you don't flop good enough on average in PLO and playing fit or fold is the biggest leak of them all. Aparently I was wrong.

I also lived under the impression if there aren't that many showdowns, your cards don't really matter much either. Aparently I was wrong on that one also.

Oh man, this stream is sooooo funny. I am watching the archived episodes one after the other and I must admit that I haven't felt that entertained for a while.

When someone asked if he was playing video games, he nodded and mentioned that he plays Space Invaders, Asteroids and Pacman. He doesn't like the newer Mrs. Pacman, but he certainly loves the one that they released just recently, Missile Command.

While I am pretty sure that lots of readers don't quite know any of these games or at least haven't played them yet, I found this answer quite funny.

Even funnier though was the bird+fish comment by guy on Twitch. I am still laughing about that one.

Guess I am the only left who cares for this show.

There is another interesting concept about the rebuy-period. David is claiming that he can only lose 8000-x chips during this period, because if he busts out he will immediately buy in again, so his stack can never fall below 8000 chips.

It seems to me that this kind of thinking leaves out one important aspect and that is the amount of money spend to buy in again. Every buy-in cost $60, regardless if you bust out before or after the re-buy-period. In the end all what counts is the ROI (= return for investment).

Playing looser in the early stage of the tournament because you can re-buy if you fail, is probably the right move, but certainly for the wrong reason.

Why does David want to purposely play too nitty to "not bust the tourny"? I think twitch would rather see David play normally with a better shot at winning.

Regardless, he is a legend and his streams are too funny between the bird and Sue.

He plays like a nit after the re-buy-stage, because he claims that chips lost are worth more than chips won. It's basically the application of his private tournament chip model.

The more interesting question is why he doesn't move in with 100% of his hands until he doubles up during the re-buy-stage. According to his theory he can't lose any chips, so every hand should be a freeroll after all.

Sklansky TV is the bomb. I could watch and listen to David all day.