Bug with Implicit strength (NOT A BUG)

[plumelch]

Hi,

I'm using NC 2.4.0.4

I did a really simple definition :

- 2 players saw flop
- Vilain Cold Call preflop
- No 3bet preflop
- Vilain Raise or XR flop

NC Note for a player is :

Raise Flop {High FD, impl. strength-8, Mid set, Top Set, Two Pair} (13)

If I'm looking for these hands in HM2, I find :

3 Raised hands
10 Check Raised hands

Total 13 ==> Good

Top set => OK
Mid set => OK
Two pair => OK
High FD => OK

But Impl. strentgh : 8 hands ?

If I substract 4 previous hands from 13 = 7 hands ???

And if I substract hands where his opponent folds.

There's only 3 hands where vilain continue with aggression.

Also Impl. Strength should be 3 and not 8.

Then I tried to test a hand when vilain raises and his opponents folds => No turn card :

Test result = impl. strength

Why this result ? It should be "unknown"

Actually, with my notes when vilain raises, he has a big hand 93% (12/13)

I think, it should be (4+3)/13 => 53%

[sreticentv]

There doesn't need to be a turn card for flop implicit strength to be valid. Otherwise, how could there exist a river implicit strength? He just needs to act at least once after his initial action (either on the flop or turn) and win without showdown and it's implicit strength

[plumelch]

Hi Sreti,

I undertand what you mean but ...

If I test this hand with the definition Raise or XR flop :

Winamax Poker - CashGame - HandId: #543543-626-1765079883 - Holdem no limit (0.25€/0.50€) - 2012/03/07 14:38:03 UTC
Table: 'Athens 7' 5-max (real money) Seat #4 is the button
Seat 1: Player1 (40.47€)
Seat 2: Player2 (34.16€)
Seat 3: Player3 (64.01€)
Seat 4: Player4 (57.04€)
Seat 5: Player (96.12€)
*** ANTE/BLINDS ***
Player posts small blind 0.25€
Player1 posts big blind 0.50€
Dealt to Player [6d As]
*** PRE-FLOP ***
Player2 raises 1.50€ to 2€
Player3 folds
Player4 calls 2€
Player folds
Player1 folds
*** FLOP *** [Qc Ac 3h]
Player2 bets 2.40€
Player4 raises 3.60€ to 6€
Player2 folds
Player4 collected 12.53€ from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 12.53€ | Rake 0.62€
Board: [Qc Ac 3h]
Seat 1: Player1 (big blind) folded on the pre-flop
Seat 2: Player2 folded on the flop
Seat 3: Player3 folded on the pre-flop
Seat 4: Player4 (button) won 12.53€
Seat 5: Player (small blind) folded on the pre-flop

Note result : SUCCESS "Raise Flop {}"

For me it's ok.
When Player4 raised it doesn't mean that he has a strong hand, it means that player2 has a weak hand.

Now another hand :

Winamax Poker - CashGame - HandId: #3078743-134-1675566273 - Holdem no limit (0.25€/0.50€) - 2012/03/02 04:44:33 UTC
Table: 'Athens 10' 5-max (real money) Seat #5 is the button
Seat 1: Player1 (123.54€)
Seat 2: Player2 (50.50€)
Seat 3: Player3 (58.36€)
Seat 4: Player4 (50.50€)
Seat 5: Player5 (48.30€)
*** ANTE/BLINDS ***
Player2 denies big blind
Player1 posts small blind 0.25€
Player3 posts big blind 0.50€
Dealt to Player4 [2c 3h]
*** PRE-FLOP ***
Player4 folds
Player5 raises 0.50€ to 1€
Player1 folds
Player3 calls 0.50€
*** FLOP *** [5d Ts Jh]
Player3 checks
Player5 bets 2€
Player3 raises 3.50€ to 5.50€
Player5 folds
Player3 collected 9.34€ from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 9.34€ | Rake 0.41€
Board: [5d Ts Jh]
Seat 1: Player1 (small blind) folded on the pre-flop
Seat 3: Player3 (big blind) won 9.34€
Seat 4: Player4 folded on the pre-flop
Seat 5: Player5 (button) folded on the flop

Note result : SUCCESS "Raise Flop {impl. strength}"

May be I'm wrong but I'm not agree.

That's the same situation as the previous hand.
Player 3 XR instead of R but result should be the same for the same reason.

In this case we can't conclude that Player3 has a strong hand. We can just say that Player 5 has a weak hand.
It should be SUCCESS "Raise Flop {}"

I think that "Implicit Strength" on the river is more complex.

[sreticentv]

Sorry you aren't agree but it is definitely working the way it was designed to. The implicit strength/weakness only refers to the first action. In the first hand it was his last action so it doesn't imply anything. However, in the second hand it means that he implied strength by checking, since he then raised over a bet

[Mr. Peek]

The implicit strength/weakness only refers to the first action.

Hi, sreticentv. The implicit strength/weakness should refer to the LAST action SPECIFIED. Otherwise, the meaning of implicit strength/weakness doesn't make sense.

Thank you.

[Mr. Peek]

Up.

[sreticentv]

The way it works now is the way it's going to work