chimpstare blog
10-22-2014
, 09:45 AM
10-31-2014
, 04:42 PM
10-31-2014
, 10:28 PM
11-17-2014
, 11:35 AM
Quote:
It seems to me that there are a lot of proposed laws that have a lot of downsides, often based on principles, but still are worth enacting because of the overall good it does for the country as a practical matter. For instance legalizing heroin, or people who illegally snuck into this country, might fit this category for some. Others might feel that such laws are much more clearly right and just.
But presently there is no simple way to distinguish lawmakers stance on issues like this. and I'm wondering if that causes some of them who think the practical upsides outweigh philosophical downsides to nevertheless vote "no" because they are afraid that they will be put in the same category as the more enthusiastic "yes's". So why not create an official category, called "tepid yes's" or something like that, which would legally be the same as a simple "yes" but also instantly makes note of the fact that the lawmaker has misgivings? I think this would, in some cases, turn some no's to yes's and help get some overall good laws passed.
But presently there is no simple way to distinguish lawmakers stance on issues like this. and I'm wondering if that causes some of them who think the practical upsides outweigh philosophical downsides to nevertheless vote "no" because they are afraid that they will be put in the same category as the more enthusiastic "yes's". So why not create an official category, called "tepid yes's" or something like that, which would legally be the same as a simple "yes" but also instantly makes note of the fact that the lawmaker has misgivings? I think this would, in some cases, turn some no's to yes's and help get some overall good laws passed.
11-18-2014
, 12:50 AM
12-08-2014
, 08:28 PM
Last edited by lumberajack; 12-08-2014 at 08:33 PM.
12-11-2014
, 04:20 AM
Think the fish would not like it. Since they win on the short therm only because of variance. They pretty much would be done right away. And also the mediocre and advanced players would learn much faster as well. Was thinking about this years ago already but would be very bad for the economy.
Keep going, will def follow this.
Peace
Keep going, will def follow this.
Peace
12-11-2014
, 04:50 AM
Quote:
Think the fish would not like it. Since they win on the short therm only because of variance. They pretty much would be done right away. And also the mediocre and advanced players would learn much faster as well. Was thinking about this years ago already but would be very bad for the economy.
Keep going, will def follow this. Peace
Keep going, will def follow this.
Peace
What would be your views on special low variance cash tables where any time you go all in, rather than seeing the remaining cards, you instantly win a share of the pot equal to your equity. In other words, if you get it all in pre with AA against KK you take 81% of the pot (the villain gets 19%), or if you get it in with KQ on JT2 against an 33-88 you take 71% of the pot.
I have never seen anyone suggest this before or talk about it, (maybe because it's a rubbish idea) but what do you think?
I imagine that it wouldn't make any difference to most full time grinders since they put in such a large volume of hands anyway, but it could help with the tilt for some players. It would certainly be more attractive for the semi-serious part time players. Not sure if fish would like it or not, which I suppose is the most important thing.
02-19-2015
, 03:29 PM
02-28-2015
, 11:06 AM
05-17-2015
, 12:58 PM
Quote:
Before posting the Spank poll I decided that if it was clear people didn't want spank silenced then as far as I'm concerned the PU experiment failed (or at least produced results I don't care for) and I'm not particularly interested in continuing to mod this forum.
Ita not even particularly about Spank, but more that we have someone that clearly is a net negative to the forum and yet people continue to support for various reasons, most of which I think are silly (doesn't mean they are silly, just my opinion).
Ita not even particularly about Spank, but more that we have someone that clearly is a net negative to the forum and yet people continue to support for various reasons, most of which I think are silly (doesn't mean they are silly, just my opinion).
05-26-2015
, 09:38 AM
07-26-2015
, 01:23 AM
Quote:
"What odds would you set on a UFC world champion (your choice, answer for any or many weight classes) vs a 100 pound chimpanzee?"
Assuming the chimpanzee knew it was in a fight from the git go, the answer would depend on whether there are some lethal or semi lethal blows that the human is aware of. I don't know about that. If there isn't, the chimpanzee is the dead nuts.
Assuming the chimpanzee knew it was in a fight from the git go, the answer would depend on whether there are some lethal or semi lethal blows that the human is aware of. I don't know about that. If there isn't, the chimpanzee is the dead nuts.
09-17-2015
, 09:21 AM
05-22-2022
, 06:26 PM
