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

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

yep, after thinking about it agree w all this sentiment, start at the beginning of discussion

Time Link to 00:09:32

Hey Grant, I would think the beginning of the discussion that leads up to the action (in this case the river check raise.)

So do we tag at the beginning of the discussion?



<----- Asshole

So do we tag at the beginning of the discussion?

Interesting question. Hopefully someone will answer.

So do we tag at the beginning of the discussion?



<----- Asshole

Sorry guys, I Grunch my posts!

Sorry guys, I Grunch my posts!

I don't know what grunch means, but no worries. It gives us a chance to show our true jerk-side.

Thanks for the shout out Grant and Jay.

For the very first few videos I tagged, I put the timestamp at the beginning of the *hand* (e.g. if a hand had a river x/r I tagged the timestamp pre-flop with my cards showing, thinking that previous streets were important to the actual decision of a river x/r). Note that this is different from the beginning of the *discussion* (e.g. on the turn coach says "if the river completes my backdoor flush, I'm going for a river checkraise").

I've since been tagging at the point of action since Grant (my Sergeant) requested it and I'm sure it makes verification for him much easier.

Having tagged many videos, I've noticed three different situations where the "beginning of the discussion takes place":
1) There was discussion prior to the actual decision (e.g. on the turn coach says "if the river completes my backdoor flush, I'm going for a river checkraise")
2) There was discussion after the decision is made (e.g. coach clicks raise on the river and then says "I checkraised the river because Villain will always bet here since my flush is disguised")
3) There was discussion after a period of time had passed referring to the decision point (e.g. coach is multi-tabling and finishes a tough decision in another hand then says "in that previous hand on Table 1, I checkraised the river because..."

Only the first of these three favour timestamping at the "beginning of the discussion" IMHO since:
In the second case, the decision is only a couple of seconds before the discussion so you might as well timestamp at the decision point. In the third case, if you don't timestamp at the decision point, the viewer has no context for the hand.

I think the best course of action also depends on how viewers will interact with the future video interface.

Currently, everyone's timestamps in the thread are linked to the flash player's progress bar as a white circle. However, these may or may not be the same timestamps that the privates are tagging (e.g. a member has a question about a hand that doesn't fall under the private's tag).

If the privates' video timestamps are going to be accessed in a similar fasion to the discussion thread timestamps (i.e. the circle indicator), then the former needs to be made distinct from the latter (e.g. red circle instead of white circle).

For future viewers who are watching the video solely because it was tagged with something interesting to them (e.g. river x/r), instead of watching from beginning to end, I would imagine they would want to start at the beginning of the hand to get context for the actual decision point. To address this and the 3 different "beginning of discussion" situations, I think we should tag at the decision point and have the Flash player popup a comment that says something like "River checkraise, hand starts at y:yy discussion starts, at z:zz)".

Unfortunately, this probably means re-working the timestamps done by some privates so far.

Interested to hear different solutions/opinions.

Thanks for the shout out Grant and Jay.

For the very first few videos I tagged, I put the timestamp at the beginning of the *hand* (e.g. if a hand had a river x/r I tagged the timestamp pre-flop with my cards showing, thinking that previous streets were important to the actual decision of a river x/r). Note that this is different from the beginning of the *discussion* (e.g. on the turn coach says "if the river completes my backdoor flush, I'm going for a river checkraise").

I've since been tagging at the point of action since Grant (my Sergeant) requested it and I'm sure it makes verification for him much easier.

Having tagged many videos, I've noticed three different situations where the "beginning of the discussion takes place":
1) There was discussion prior to the actual decision (e.g. on the turn coach says "if the river completes my backdoor flush, I'm going for a river checkraise")
2) There was discussion after the decision is made (e.g. coach clicks raise on the river and then says "I checkraised the river because Villain will always bet here since my flush is disguised")
3) There was discussion after a period of time had passed referring to the decision point (e.g. coach is multi-tabling and finishes a tough decision in another hand then says "in that previous hand on Table 1, I checkraised the river because..."

Only the first of these three favour timestamping at the "beginning of the discussion" IMHO since:
In the second case, the decision is only a couple of seconds before the discussion so you might as well timestamp at the decision point. In the third case, if you don't timestamp at the decision point, the viewer has no context for the hand.

I think generally we should be tagging at the beginning of the discussion prior to the actual situation. It often can give the context for the whole hand but more importantly it allows the viewer to see the point at which the coach begins vocalizing his entire decision-making process.

I think the best course of action also depends on how viewers will interact with the future video interface.

Currently, everyone's timestamps in the thread are linked to the flash player's progress bar as a white circle. However, these may or may not be the same timestamps that the privates are tagging (e.g. a member has a question about a hand that doesn't fall under the private's tag).

If the privates' video timestamps are going to be accessed in a similar fasion to the discussion thread timestamps (i.e. the circle indicator), then the former needs to be made distinct from the latter (e.g. red circle instead of white circle).

The MTR timestamps (once vetted and checked by us) will be made distinct from the discussion timestamps, yes.

For future viewers who are watching the video solely because it was tagged with something interesting to them (e.g. river x/r), instead of watching from beginning to end, I would imagine they would want to start at the beginning of the hand to get context for the actual decision point. To address this and the 3 different "beginning of discussion" situations, I think we should tag at the decision point and have the Flash player popup a comment that says something like "River checkraise, hand starts at y:yy discussion starts, at z:zz)".

See my thoughts above, I think it's worth having them begin at the earliest pt of discussion

Unfortunately, this probably means re-working the timestamps done by some privates so far.

Interested to hear different solutions/opinions.

we're going to have to look at all the timestamps before they're put into the system anyway, i think the best we can do is come to an agreement on what the best possible practice for tagging is and make sure that's communicated to everyone from here on out