Define opportunities by range question

[FALOs]

Hi!
Define opportunities by range.

As you can see, texas607 was on SD, but don't show his hand.
But his hand was qualified as "Opportunities" for the specified range instead of being ignored by the program..
What can be the reason?

Ty.

***** Hand History for Game 823593438 *****
€10 EUR NL Hold'em - Friday, July 28, 18:59:52 2017
Table Litio 5max - NLH 81017 (Real Money)
Seat 4 is the button
Seat 1: 250885 (€14.61 EUR)
Seat 2: texas607 (€8.84 EUR)
Seat 3: Team_Oria_KingTony (€20.27 EUR)
Seat 4: fiorentino89x (€12.50 EUR)
Seat 5: valerooooo (€9.90 EUR)
valerooooo posts small blind [€0.05 EUR].
250885 posts big blind [€0.10 EUR]
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to valerooooo [ 7s, 7h ]
texas607 raises [€0.30 EUR]
Team_Oria_KingTony folds
fiorentino89x folds
valerooooo raises [€0.95 EUR]
250885 folds
texas607 calls [€0.70 EUR]
** Dealing Flop ** [ Qs, As, 7d ]
valerooooo bets [€1.48 EUR]
texas607 calls [€1.48 EUR]
** Dealing Turn ** [ 3s ]
valerooooo checks
texas607 checks
** Dealing River ** [ 6s ]
valerooooo bets [€2.88 EUR]
texas607 calls [€2.88 EUR]
valerooooo shows [ 7s, 7h ]
valerooooo wins €10.18 EUR

[sreticentv]

It depends on what range was specified. If you attach your definition I could better understand what's happening

[FALOs]

I'm sorry for the late reply.


This is a common problem for all definitions that use "River range" with using Implicit option.

Simple logic say to me, that:
1) If Hero reraise and his opponent fold, without SD, this is Implicit strength
2) If Hero bet, and his opponent reraise and Hero fold, without SD, this is Implicit weakness
3) If hero call and loose without showing his hand - such hand must to be ignored in any Range specification.

Is this not a natural logic?

But when I use the Implicit option in any form - tick Impl. str and Impl. weak. simultaneously, or separately,
i get illogical results that are misleading.

Of course, if we reject the implicit option at all, the problem will go away, but can you just make this option more logical??? : Call and don't show Hand - ignored!


PR.AP.3Barrels.R_Bet[40-59%]_STRONG_B.xml

Hand:

***** Hand History for Game 823800425 *****
€10 EUR NL Hold'em - Saturday, July 29, 09:19:25 2017
Table Litio 5max - NLH 11008 (Real Money)
Seat 4 is the button
Seat 1: ciaciara (€10.27 EUR)
Seat 2: AleM18 (€13.01 EUR)
Seat 3: p1p0r1tt0 (€10.00 EUR)
Seat 4: valerooooo (€13.03 EUR)
Seat 5: BIRILACCIO10 (€15.74 EUR)
BIRILACCIO10 posts small blind [€0.05 EUR].
ciaciara posts big blind [€0.10 EUR]
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to valerooooo [ 6d, Ts ]
AleM18 folds
p1p0r1tt0 folds
valerooooo folds
BIRILACCIO10 calls [€0.05 EUR]
ciaciara raises [€0.30 EUR]
BIRILACCIO10 calls [€0.30 EUR]
** Dealing Flop ** [ Kc, 4s, 8s ]
BIRILACCIO10 checks
ciaciara bets [€0.38 EUR]
BIRILACCIO10 calls [€0.38 EUR]
** Dealing Turn ** [ 2s ]
BIRILACCIO10 checks
ciaciara bets [€0.73 EUR]
BIRILACCIO10 calls [€0.73 EUR]
** Dealing River ** [ Ah ]
BIRILACCIO10 checks
ciaciara bets [€1.42 EUR]
BIRILACCIO10 raises [€2.84 EUR]
ciaciara calls [€1.42 EUR]
BIRILACCIO10 shows [ Ks, Js ]
BIRILACCIO10 wins €8.18 EUR

[sreticentv]

I'm sorry but I really can't agree here. The guy had the opportunity to raise rather than call and imply strength.

3) If hero call and loose without showing his hand - such hand must to be ignored in any Range specification.

No, the point of implicit strength/weakness is to assign a range for when we don't know the cards. In this case even if we do know the cards - for example if I add the line

ciaciara shows [ 7s, 2s ]

to the hand history it's still an opportunity because he still could have raised

[FALOs]

the point of implicit strength/weakness is to assign a range for when we don't know the cards.

I saw you diligently busy passing on HM3. Let's discuss whether it makes sense to transfer the current logic to an updated program.

For example, i make def, when i want to see, what range my opponent have on river, when make small lead, something < 40% pot.

He lead in me 4 times, and fold 4 times on my raise. This is implicit weaknes. All this 4 times i had nuts or almost nuts. So, what i can say about range of this guy - that he most likely have weak range. With your logic, when he lead in me, and call my raise without SD - this is ALSO implicit weakness with current logic, but i can't say about his range NOTHING in this case because!

Even in your description of Implicit weakness i see:
Ph3iNYt.png

This is when a player fold eventually.....

Fold Eventually - Call is not fold.

Even more strange logic i see there, in other definition:

***** Hand History for Game 823572445 *****
€10 EUR NL Hold'em - Friday, July 28, 18:17:17 2017
Table Litio 5max - NLH 21007 (Real Money)
Seat 4 is the button
Seat 1: sushishock (€10.17 EUR)
Seat 2: valerooooo (€18.18 EUR)
Seat 3: kingthemage (€10.00 EUR)
Seat 4: pernacchia9 (€24.66 EUR)
Seat 5: merolla96 (€2.88 EUR)
merolla96 posts small blind [€0.05 EUR].
sushishock posts big blind [€0.10 EUR]
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to valerooooo [ Kh, 7s ]
valerooooo folds
kingthemage folds
pernacchia9 raises [€0.30 EUR]
merolla96 folds
sushishock raises [€0.90 EUR]
pernacchia9 calls [€0.70 EUR]
** Dealing Flop ** [ 6s, 8h, 3c ]
sushishock bets [€1 EUR]
pernacchia9 calls [€1 EUR]
** Dealing Turn ** [ Qh ]
sushishock checks
pernacchia9 bets [€1.80 EUR]
sushishock calls [€1.80 EUR]
** Dealing River ** [ 2h ]
sushishock checks
pernacchia9 checks
sushishock shows [ Tc, 8c ]
sushishock wins €7.20 EUR

pernacchia9 show implicit weakness for TURN range. Why??? No "fold eventually" for impl. weakness, why not ignored?

I can not understand what is the benefit of the logic that you describe here. I see only problems and confusion. Maybe someone else tell me what is the benefit of the logic that you are defending? Especially since she goes against the description in the tooltips, which looks correct, logical and understandable.

Ty.