Kim Lee Chat

zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
#41
#41
RJT said:
i totally understand and agree that this isn't a democracy and as such is subject to the moderators opinions, but frankly i think i'm done here. The censorship of the people that are widely known to be pros by the mods is getting to the point where if they criticize anyone their posts just disappear under whatever rules the board mods want to utilize at that specific moment. That's fair enough but i'm now clocking out - i'll make use of the chat room where i don't have to deal with that as long as it remains unmoderated, but these boards are essentially a dead zone that i'm not going to even partake in reading anymore.
I'm sad to see this happen and i'm sorry it's come to this but you tread a thin line and walked too far into one side.
Click to expand...
Ahh... The dog barks, but the caravan moves on. zg
 
Last edited:
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
#42
#42
KimLee said:
I have no experience with moderated chats. But I respect what Ken Smith has done with this site, and think moderation might increase communication. I hope moderation doesn't censor questions. For example, I'll tolerate disagreement or flames. But a moderator can collect and condense comments and keep things on a single topic.
Click to expand...
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? zg
 
K

KimLee

Well-Known Member
#44
#44
zengrifter said:
Dr. Lee, you do not need moderation in the upcoming chat. ... YOUR call
Click to expand...
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.

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

zengrifter

Banned
#45
#45
KimLee said:
I'm a bit uninformed. Would CP be the moderator?
Click to expand...
Oh - CP would be okay, I suppose... but not required. OTOH if its not CP, I'm agin it.
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.
Click to expand...
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:cool:g
 
creeping panther

creeping panther

Banned
#47
#47
Great

KimLee said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...
This is one of the things I also really respect about Kim Lee, he has no fear of taking it to the MAT!:cool::)

I will not moderate but suspect Sonny or ICNT.

But then again,,,, Zen would be acceptable to me:grin:

CP
 
S

SystemsTrader

Well-Known Member
#50
#50
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.
 
KenSmith

KenSmith

Administrator
Staff member
#51
#51
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.
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
#52
#52
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!:cool::)

I will not moderate but suspect .... ICNT.
Click to expand...
Ohhhhhh noooooooooooo!!!!! z::eek:g
 
Last edited:
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
#54
#54
Pro21 said:
I don't think Stalker would need a mod...
and I would LOVE to attend that chat.
Click to expand...
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). zg
 
Gramazeka

Gramazeka

Well-Known Member
#56
#56
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.
 
zengrifter

zengrifter

Banned
#57
#57
Gramazeka said:
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.
Click to expand...
Dosvedanya, comrade. zg
 
Gramazeka

Gramazeka

Well-Known Member
#58
#58
6.269

lol, my friend zengrifter ! You have 6.269 posts!!! (Dead link: http://smiles.33b.ru/smile.162208.html) _
_ This is your business? (Dead link: http://smiles.33b.ru/smile.161740.html) _
_
 
Last edited:
Katweezel

Katweezel

Well-Known Member
#59
#59
WRX said:
"Chat" seems too mild a term for any exchange with stalker.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Stalker has a nasty streak in there, unlike the rest of us here. :rolleyes: ZG misses the old Fight Club. But now that He is the SuperModerator:mad: 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:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top