zengrifter
Banned
Ahh... The dog barks, but the caravan moves on. zgRJT said:
Last edited:
Kim Lee Chat
- Thread starter creeping panther
- Start date
zengrifter
Banned
Dr. Lee, you do not need moderation in the upcoming chat. The chats are quite manageable without the bottleneck of some overly anal jackbooted mod. Trust me on this and and call the shot in favor of 'Kim Lee Live and Direct, Free from Mod Effect." Its entirely YOUR call, not some jack-booted post-busting mod. Cape'ce? zgKimLee said:
KimLee
Well-Known Member
I'm a bit uninformed. Would CP be the moderator? Offhand I think the moderator just screens and rephrases questions. In principle this could improve redundant or poorly phrased questions. In practice I suspect it is limited by the typing speed.zengrifter said:
So I'm fine with moderating myself. I don't expect zillions of disruptive questions. I'm open to suggestions for organization: 15 minutes of math, 15 minutes of practical stuff, 15 minutes of flames. Or we can go for traffic and do 45 minutes of flames.
zengrifter
Banned
Oh - CP would be okay, I suppose... but not required. OTOH if its not CP, I'm agin it.KimLee said:
Where is all of this worry about flame coming from?
Has Dr. Lee been getting a lot of flame?
Regardless, lets end this BS myth that "celebrity chants' need moderation.
The only celeb I can think of who would need a mod is.... STALKER! z
g
creeping panther
Banned
Great
I will not moderate but suspect Sonny or ICNT.
But then again,,,, Zen would be acceptable to me:grin:
CP
This is one of the things I also really respect about Kim Lee, he has no fear of taking it to the MAT!KimLee said:
I will not moderate but suspect Sonny or ICNT.
But then again,,,, Zen would be acceptable to me:grin:
CP
SystemsTrader
Well-Known Member
Correct me if I'm wrong Mods but the chats weren't moderated for censorship but to assist the guest. What was happening was a lot of chatters were showing up and the guest would receive a lot of questions all at once and it became difficult for the guest chatter to keep up with the onslaught of questions. So they were just trying to keep the chat flowing smoothly. Whether that worked is a matter of opinion? These guest chats are still a work in progress with trial and error.
Yes, the chats were moderated to keep the questions manageable for the guest, and to bring a flow to the conversation.
With all the requests for doing away with the moderation, let's give it a try for this chat. Mods will still be present if needed for issues, but the questions themselves will be a free-for-all. KimLee sounds ready for the challenge!
Afterwards we'll get some feedback on how the two options compare.
So, the KimLee chat will not be moderated.
With all the requests for doing away with the moderation, let's give it a try for this chat. Mods will still be present if needed for issues, but the questions themselves will be a free-for-all. KimLee sounds ready for the challenge!
Afterwards we'll get some feedback on how the two options compare.
So, the KimLee chat will not be moderated.
zengrifter
Banned
Ohhhhhh noooooooooooo!!!!! z:creeping panther said:This is one of the things I also really respect about Kim Lee, he has no fear of taking it to the MAT!
I will not moderate but suspect .... ICNT.
g
Last edited:
zengrifter
Banned
Always, but I like to pick a good spot for it. zgkewljason said:
zengrifter
Banned
Just because he's banned from BJINFO doesn't mean he can't be a celeb chatter, I second the vote, all in favor of Stalker chat say AYE... and we can ask Dr. Lee to make the formal invite, via Fight Club (God I miss that place). zgPro21 said:
Lonesome Gambler
Well-Known Member
Is Fight Club even active any more? I'd second the stalker chat suggestion, but somehow I doubt he'd be terribly interested...
Gramazeka
Well-Known Member
My question for KimLee
The interesting theory-
We have 2 sets of rules - with surrender for Ace and without. We have TT against a 6, TC is +5 (HiLow). In what case splitting is better option? Only in terms of max. EV disregarding risk aversion (which, I believe, does not bother you) and other factors.
Answer -
Without surrender for Ace splitting is more worth considering. By splitting you pull at least 2 cards out of the deck. Every card pulled out under +TC is a loss of EV. By refraining from splitting you increase the number of hands dealt under current shuffle. By splitting you pull out 2 cards, about 6 cards are pulled out at 1 box, so you'll play 1/3 of a hand less. The more EV at the top of shuffle the more is
your loss from splitting.
In case of surrender for Ace EV is 3.2% under the TC of +5.
In case of no surrender for Ace EV is 2.8% under the TC of +5.
So, in first case the loss is 3.2/3=1.07%, in second 2.8/3=0.93%.
This factor is not considered when indeces are calculated in a classical way. If we consider it, the splitting index for TT against a 6 is abot 4.7, against a 5 is 5.3 (for a standars BJ with surrender for Ace). Under classical calculation we'll have 4.3 and 4.8 respectively.
The interesting theory-
We have 2 sets of rules - with surrender for Ace and without. We have TT against a 6, TC is +5 (HiLow). In what case splitting is better option? Only in terms of max. EV disregarding risk aversion (which, I believe, does not bother you) and other factors.
Answer -
Without surrender for Ace splitting is more worth considering. By splitting you pull at least 2 cards out of the deck. Every card pulled out under +TC is a loss of EV. By refraining from splitting you increase the number of hands dealt under current shuffle. By splitting you pull out 2 cards, about 6 cards are pulled out at 1 box, so you'll play 1/3 of a hand less. The more EV at the top of shuffle the more is
your loss from splitting.
In case of surrender for Ace EV is 3.2% under the TC of +5.
In case of no surrender for Ace EV is 2.8% under the TC of +5.
So, in first case the loss is 3.2/3=1.07%, in second 2.8/3=0.93%.
This factor is not considered when indeces are calculated in a classical way. If we consider it, the splitting index for TT against a 6 is abot 4.7, against a 5 is 5.3 (for a standars BJ with surrender for Ace). Under classical calculation we'll have 4.3 and 4.8 respectively.
zengrifter
Banned
Dosvedanya, comrade. zgGramazeka said:
Katweezel
Well-Known Member
Yeah, Stalker has a nasty streak in there, unlike the rest of us here.WRX said:
ZG misses the old Fight Club. But now that He is the SuperModerator of the ZZ mark II, no doubt we will soon witness the BORN AGAIN FIGHT CLUB, down on the (new) ZZ. Will Stalker be invited, nasty and all? (Nastier the better on the Fight Club.) Stalker, InPlay and JSTAT could be invited for the first fight. :flame: