I knew, eventually, someone would ask, even though I said no questions, please.
So, what I have in mind can't fit as an appendix for BJA4, because it would be over 1,000 pages! So, am exploring other options. Will either have to be online, which I'm not so keen on, or be 12 separate booklets of, maybe, 100 pages or so each. I'm working on this with Gronbog, and have had the idea in my head forever. Just don't want to discuss further at this time, as we're still fleshing out the scope and design of the whole thing. But, I can promise you this much: no one will be disappointed.
Don
Whoops, sorry! Guess I need to improve my reading comprehension.
1000 pages is not to bad for a stand-alone book! The Art of Computer Programming anthology is almost 10,000. So, you have some major work to do to beat Donald Knuth! LOL!So, what I have in mind can't fit as an appendix for BJA4, because it would be over 1,000 pages! So, am exploring other options. Will either have to be online, which I'm not so keen on, or be 12 separate booklets of, maybe, 100 pages or so each. I'm working on this with Gronbog, and have had the idea in my head forever. Just don't want to discuss further at this time, as we're still fleshing out the scope and design of the whole thing. But, I can promise you this much: no one will be disappointed.
Don
Anyway, depending on what you are working on depends on how you wish to segment data. If I think I know what you are working on is, that means a single encyclopedia would suffice.
Whatever you guys are working on, really looking forward to the finished product!
As per your question, here is what I would like to see:
- High Low
- HIOPT I or Gordon
- HIOPT II
- KO
- RPC
- UBZ 2
- Halves
- Zen
- Mentor
- UAPC
I think keeping it down to 10 would be sufficient enough. If you really need/want 12 : the Ten/Insurance Count (Ace-Neutral) plus Omega II.
I kept FELT and REKO out as RPC and KO are already included.
Like the idea of booklets or a book for the non full time pros. For me, I just need conclusions and recommendations and not where stats came from, how they were calculated, number of sins, etc. For example, I was again reading the “floating advantage” chapters, the interesting back stories of back and forth between Don S and the bishop and others. However, at the end I still was not sure if and how much I should differentiate the amount I should bet when TC is Plus 2 in the second round of a DD game and its Plus 2 after 1.5 decks have been played.
Thanks. In formal writing, I would say you are correct. There are a great many posts on this topic on the internet, and most recommend I in this construction. But, less formal everyday speech seems to have made concessions for using the objective case, rather than the nominative. Not equivocating, but "as old as I" sounds stilted to me.
Don
I believe the term 'elliptical clause' is appropriate here: https://www.google.com/search?q=elli...obile&ie=UTF-8
I believe the way to think about it is by adding, in this case, the word "am" to the end of both choices temporarily in your mind to see how each sounds:
1) Norm will resent you calling him as old as I (am).
2) Norm will resent you calling him as old as me (am).
I think that because the first one, and not the second one, makes sense, then "Norm will resent you calling him as old as I" is the correct choice.
Over 30 years ago, my high school literature teacher Mrs. Allen and I had some kind of disagreement about elliptical clauses (or maybe it was about predicate nominatives?). (For those who care, I believe the last sentence of my final paragraph (below) contains a predicate nominative example: Although most people would write or say, "Of course, perhaps it was 'me' who was mistaken," I believe "Of course, perhaps it was 'I' who was mistaken" is correct. I think the reasoning is because when shortened, "I was mistaken" makes sense while "Me was mistaken" does not.).
I thought she was mistaken, and I remember being really surprised at the time that an English teacher could be wrong about such a thing. (Of course, perhaps it was I who was mistaken.).
Bookmarks