Poker Video: Misc/Other by KRANTZ (Micro/Small Stakes)

JOE TALL BIRTHDAY CAKE!!1111eleventyoneoneone

Woo Grant!

Also nice GUTS reference.

JOE TALL BIRTHDAY CAKE!!1111eleventyoneoneone

A great deal of irony in the fact that you responded so quickly to this lol.

A great deal of irony in the fact that you responded so quickly to this lol.

STFU K THX... I just happened to be checking DC and it just went up

STFU K THX... I just happened to be checking DC and it just went up

hahaha sure, sure

GK:VPIP, FTW.

Also a quick question, just to clarify. KRANTZ said that we shouldn't use too many timestamps, and we shouldn't timestamp specific actions, but the form specifically asks for that in the form of 3-barrels, river x/r's, etc. If there were like 6 instances of these in a given video, should we not tag all of them?

I would suggest just putting in the timestamp time when the action occured AND also time when the hand starts. For anybody tagging it is like 5 extra seconds of work and it can make things a easier in future.

Just curious - is anybody going to check the tagging information or that is what saergants are doing? Because I can imagine there will be some unnecessary or wrong information in the protocol but checking more than thousand of protocol is just suicide. Will there be also something like feedback system, so DC members can inform dev guys in some easy way the the timestamp is bad, content tags are not matching, etc.?

What about future videos? Will Mt. Robusto continue ad infinitum?

Also a quick question, just to clarify. KRANTZ said that we shouldn't use too many timestamps, and we shouldn't timestamp specific actions, but the form specifically asks for that in the form of 3-barrels, river x/r's, etc. If there were like 6 instances of these in a given video, should we not tag all of them?

use your best judgement, the form is in a sense just a guideline. if there are 6 worthy instances, definitely note them.

I would suggest just putting in the timestamp time when the action occured AND also time when the hand starts. For anybody tagging it is like 5 extra seconds of work and it can make things a easier in future.

Just curious - is anybody going to check the tagging information or that is what saergants are doing? Because I can imagine there will be some unnecessary or wrong information in the protocol but checking more than thousand of protocol is just suicide. Will there be also something like feedback system, so DC members can inform dev guys in some easy way the the timestamp is bad, content tags are not matching, etc.?

What about future videos? Will Mt. Robusto continue ad infinitum?

the sergeants check the tags and we will also be checking everything before it gets added to the official system... and yes we will have mechanisms in place for feedback and for tagging current/future vids once everything is done

I would suggest just putting in the timestamp time when the action occured AND also time when the hand starts.

I've always tagged at the beginning of the discussion. After all, someone searching is going to want to know what the coach is talking about, not just the end result. IMHO. Plus if it's a turn or river discussion, how they got there is vital.

Also a quick question, just to clarify. KRANTZ said that we shouldn't use too many timestamps, and we shouldn't timestamp specific actions, but the form specifically asks for that in the form of 3-barrels, river x/r's, etc. If there were like 6 instances of these in a given video, should we not tag all of them?

Like Jay said, use your discretion - there are some vids (especially 4 or 6 tabling) where there are hundreds of timestamps but most of the hands aren't discussed. So timestamping a 3-bet pot where there's 0 discussion and it's a super easy fold might be something you'd be less likely to do when there are tons of other hands in a video that are more worthwhile of being tagged.

Rob

I've always tagged at the beginning of the discussion. After all, someone searching is going to want to know what the coach is talking about, not just the end result. IMHO. Plus if it's a turn or river discussion, how they got there is vital.

Yes, that makes sense and tagging the beginning is infinitely better than tagging the action itself.

I've always tagged at the beginning of the discussion. After all, someone searching is going to want to know what the coach is talking about, not just the end result. IMHO. Plus if it's a turn or river discussion, how they got there is vital.

Agreed, I also tag where the hand starts, not necessarily where the action itself occurs.