Defs issue, Define oportunities by range
Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    15

    Default Defs issue, Define oportunities by range

    i have created my own notes for river bet: weak, mid, strong (copied everything from defs which come with soft). But used action sequences. So these defs are all the same - only difference is in ranges - they do not cross.
    I have different amount for "successful opportunities": bets River weak - 9/180, mid - 32/116, strong 50/100. these are for example but the image is always alike: many possibilities for weak, not so many for mid and just a bit less then mid is strong. I think they should be the same as with defs that come with NC in Dijest.
    The problem with "Define opportunities by range" also occurred in other def "raise river weak": opportunities were chosen like they are "Define opportunities by action". Have checked with seek and test and they make wrong assumptions too/ (seems like for this def only - so weird. checked it in text editor and it looks fine)
    Last edited by zheka; 06-21-2012 at 05:26 PM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kharkov
    Posts
    481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zheka View Post
    i have created my own notes for river bet: weak, mid, strong (copied everything from defs which come with soft). But used action sequences. So this def are all the same - only difference is in ranges - they do not cross.
    I have different amount for "successful opportunities": bets River weak - 9/180, mid - 32/116, strong 50/100. these is for example but the image is always alike: many possibilities for weak, not so many for mid and just a bit less then mid is strong. I think they should be the same as with defs that come with NC in Dijest.
    The problem with "Define opportunities by range" also occurred in other def "raise river weak": opportunities were chosen like they are "Define opportunities by action". Have checked with seek and test and they make wrong assumptions too/ (seems like for this def only - so weird. checked it in text editor and it looks fine)
    1) You recieve this result in Seek? Seek may not show the whole sample - sometimes, this is a problem

    2) Do you use something like effective stack, enemy types, bet size e.t.c? Maybe they are different in your defs?

    3) Test the original definition, without your Action Sequence - they also show the different number of hands?

    4) Do you speek russian? (Your nick is hint)

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    15

    Default

    Yes, Russian is my native.
    3) The action sequence is: player does not check, he bets, he does not raise. The other option is to use deprecated Actions.
    2) I don't use any filters - i want simple stuff to work properly at this point. The original defs are 004riverbet...
    1) No, i receive these results after creating notes: i see this picture for all players - i don't know what the program "thinks" - its actions are counterintuitive because it gives different results after different runs. I had to create a new DB and that didn't help.

    [R]bluff bet: (40/265 15%)
    [R]mid bet: (9/174 5%)
    [R]strong bet: (45/155 29%)

    Edit: Just have spotted @raise@ thing in action sequence - don't remember on 100% but that was an older addition and defs hadn't worked as i thought they do from the start. Will remove the raise and check if so.
    It will be great to have possibility to run notes creation on the part of DB for bug searching - making notes for all of it is such a pain
    Last edited by zheka; 06-21-2012 at 06:03 PM.

  4. #4
    NoteCaddy sreticentv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    No direction but to trust the final destination
    Posts
    6,481

    Default

    Some time ago there was a bug in those defaults. This has been fixed so you should try to download them from the Definition Digest - Assaultware Wiki again and see if the denominator is always the same there as it should be

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    15

    Default

    The defaults work great. But (don't laugh ) I am trying to replace them with my own because from the very first start using them and something other is the point where the software begins to work wrong on the PC (like after adding them a lot of bugs appear like JJ or Ah considered "Nothing" and so on)

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kharkov
    Posts
    481

    Default

    Интересно.
    Если я правильно тебя понял, ты хочешь сказать, что после добавления этих дефолтных дефиниций, НC начинает глючить?? Сомнительно, что такое поведение может быть.
    А когда ты ставишь эти дефиниции как inactive, ты все-равно получаешь эти Nothing, или программа начинает работать нормально?

  7. #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    15

    Default

    Да это игра воображения - он просто глючит. Когда найду время, сделаю полную переустановку всего. Потом посмотрим

Similar Threads

  1. Caddy Scatter Omaha value range issue
    By alison in forum NoteCaddy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-29-2012, 05:30 PM
  2. Lost active defs
    By almac in forum NoteCaddy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-11-2012, 03:29 PM
  3. Omaha Defs
    By johncc in forum NoteCaddy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-08-2012, 08:45 AM
  4. Define opportunities by range - bug?(BW)
    By Olaf in forum NoteCaddy
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 02-04-2012, 07:18 PM
  5. Some defs please
    By slamdunka in forum Manager General
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-29-2008, 09:08 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •