I think the poker example is OK, and paragraphs like
“The second decision point was when the flop was dealt and you faced a bet. This time you decided to fold. Maybe that wasn’t the best play though. Maybe you should have called. Maybe you should have raised. Again, the goal of hand review is to figure this out.”
made sense to me. But the terminology in the dialogue was very tough: button, Rainbow, LAGgy, bdfs, AX, nut flush, nitty—I understood none of these. (I’ve played poker now and then, but never studied it). So keeping the example but translating it a bit further to more widely-used language (if possible) might be good.
But the terminology in the dialogue was very tough: button, Rainbow, LAGgy, bdfs, AX, nut flush, nitty—I understood none of these. (I’ve played poker now and then, but never studied it). So keeping the example but translating it a bit further to more widely-used language (if possible) might be good.
Hm yeah, maybe this exchange was pushing things too much. I’m not sure though.
I thought that even if you don’t know the terms, it’s clear that they are passionately discussing whether it should have been a call or a fold. I felt like this was sort of important actually. To give the reader a more concrete sense of the sort of disagreement I’m envisioning. And what it looks like at an emotional level. And just how easy it can be to get a sort of “tunnel vision” and get sucked into disagreements like that. I figured that those things would shine through to readers even when the reader doesn’t know the poker terminology.
But now I’m feeling more skeptical. Now I’m thinking that it might or might not shine through, depending on the reader and the level of effort the reader feels like applying. It definitely would have been better to choose an example that is more relatable.
I skipped through 90% of the text of this example without it detracting much from the main point of the post. I think it would be better with much less text and with translation of the jargon used.
I personally thought it was slightly distracting. I found myself thinking a lot about the terms (like whether I should know the words already), amd after comcluding no, I barely paid attention to the rest od the dialogue and missed almost all of the nuance. I think hyper specific content works only when it makes sense to the audience or if the lack of understanding is part of the point.
I think the poker example is OK, and paragraphs like
“The second decision point was when the flop was dealt and you faced a bet. This time you decided to fold. Maybe that wasn’t the best play though. Maybe you should have called. Maybe you should have raised. Again, the goal of hand review is to figure this out.”
made sense to me. But the terminology in the dialogue was very tough: button, Rainbow, LAGgy, bdfs, AX, nut flush, nitty—I understood none of these. (I’ve played poker now and then, but never studied it). So keeping the example but translating it a bit further to more widely-used language (if possible) might be good.
Hm yeah, maybe this exchange was pushing things too much. I’m not sure though.
I thought that even if you don’t know the terms, it’s clear that they are passionately discussing whether it should have been a call or a fold. I felt like this was sort of important actually. To give the reader a more concrete sense of the sort of disagreement I’m envisioning. And what it looks like at an emotional level. And just how easy it can be to get a sort of “tunnel vision” and get sucked into disagreements like that. I figured that those things would shine through to readers even when the reader doesn’t know the poker terminology.
But now I’m feeling more skeptical. Now I’m thinking that it might or might not shine through, depending on the reader and the level of effort the reader feels like applying. It definitely would have been better to choose an example that is more relatable.
I skipped through 90% of the text of this example without it detracting much from the main point of the post. I think it would be better with much less text and with translation of the jargon used.
I personally thought it was slightly distracting. I found myself thinking a lot about the terms (like whether I should know the words already), amd after comcluding no, I barely paid attention to the rest od the dialogue and missed almost all of the nuance. I think hyper specific content works only when it makes sense to the audience or if the lack of understanding is part of the point.