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.

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