Turn action sequences issue

[FALOs]

Hi!

Turn action sequences work not as expected, so I need help.

In my def. i expect sucess for all aggressive player actions against Preflop Raiser, and opportunity for passive ones on Turn.

Hand:

PokerStars Hand #106722782855: Hold'em No Limit ($500/$1000 USD) - 2020/11/28 15:18:39 UTC
Table 'PKDOM_IDNP_TXH10672' 6-max Seat #4 is the button
Seat 1: TIMAN88 ($19876 in chips)
Seat 2: Z22E2W26 ($62446 in chips)
Seat 3: KIKIFADIL ($23140 in chips)
Seat 4: PAKP0L13 ($19500 in chips)
Seat 5: XZYBIT ($16000 in chips)
Seat 6: AZRINA1234 ($9000 in chips)
# {"gt":"NLTHP","tn":"PKDOM_IDNP_TXH10672","tid":106 72,"pn":{"0":"TIMAN88","1":"Z22E2W26","2":"KIKIFAD IL","3":"PAKP0L13","4":"XZYBIT","5":"AZRINA1234"}, "pids":{"0":321761384,"1":286540022,"2":493701492, "3":500171050,"4":543833288,"5":540997782},"room": "Idnp"}
XZYBIT: posts small blind $500
AZRINA1234: posts big blind $1000
TIMAN88: posts big blind $1000
PAKP0L13: posts big blind $1000
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Z22E2W26 [4d As]
TIMAN88: checks
Z22E2W26: folds
KIKIFADIL: folds
PAKP0L13: raises $4000 to $5000
XZYBIT: calls $4500
AZRINA1234: folds
TIMAN88: folds
*** FLOP *** [9d Jd 9c]
XZYBIT: checks
PAKP0L13: bets $9200
XZYBIT: calls $9200
*** TURN *** [9d Jd 9c] [Kd]
XZYBIT: checks
PAKP0L13: bets $1800
XZYBIT: calls $1800 and is all-in
*** RIVER *** [9d Jd 9c Kd] [Ts]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
PAKP0L13 collected $32980 from pot
PAKP0L13: shows [Jh Qd]
XZYBIT: shows [8d Jc]
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $34000 | Rake $1020
Board [9d Jd 9c Kd Ts]
Seat 1: TIMAN88 folded before Flop
Seat 2: Z22E2W26 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 3: KIKIFADIL folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 4: PAKP0L13 (button) showed [Jh Qd] and won ($32980) with Straight, King high
Seat 5: XZYBIT (small blind) showed [8d Jc] and lost with Two pair, Jack's and Nine's with a King for a kicker
Seat 6: AZRINA1234 (big blind) folded before Flop


XZYBIT check on turn and initial Preflop Raiser bet for XZYBIT entire remaining stack , so only possible actions for him after that is call or fold.
This is passive action, so i expect "opportunity" - orange in "Test". But the test shows "black".

If i add "check - call" to Turn Sequncess, then test show me Success.


I'm trying to understand why the absence of this action in sequences does not lead to an opportunity.

I will attach my definition to quickly recreate the situation.

[NotecaddyEdge]

What are you trying to accomplish with these Action Sequences?

HERO BET-PR CALL TURN
HERO BET-PR RAISE TURN

The final actions for these sequences are not for the note recipient, so basically it seems that you are saying Note Recipient Bet, and the opponent called or raised. I'm not sure what their purpose is.

If you are trying to make a success for aggressive actions, and opportunity for passive then I think you would do it like this:

2 separate action sequences
1. not recipient bet → recipient raise
2. not recipient check → recipient bet

This would give a success for when the recipient raised, or bet the Turn. If recipient calls or folds, then it would be an opportunity.

Did I understand the issue correctly?

[FALOs]

Hi NotecadyEdge!


What are you trying to accomplish with these Action Sequences?

HERO BET-PR CALL TURN
HERO BET-PR RAISE TURN
The final actions for these sequences are not for the note recipient, so basically it seems that you are saying Note Recipient Bet, and the opponent called or raised. I'm not sure what their purpose is.


Definition should calculate the player's aggression % against the preflop raiser.
So I need to make sure that the last Preflop raiser is left against the hero on the Turn, and not someone else. After all, there may be a situation when the preflop raiser, for example, folded the cards on the flop, and the third player remained on the turn against the hero. That is why I created these sequences - definition should count the player's aggression exclusively against the last preflop raiser.
If I didn't need to make sure that the original preflop raiser was against Hero, then Hero Check-Raise, Hero Bet, Hero Reraise sequences would be enough for me.

Considering that every aggressive action must be committed against PR, how else do you see the solution to this problem, except to list all possible actions:

Hero Check > PR bet > Hero Raise
Hero Bet > PR call ("PR Call" sequence need because only there i can use checkbox " Player had to be last preflop raiser")
Hero Bet > PR Raise (same logic for PR detection)
Hero Bet > PR Fold (same logic for PR detection)
PR Check > Hero Bet
PR Bet > Hero Raise


If i wil not use all this PR Call, PR Raise, PR Fold - how can I make sure that when Hero Bet, the Preflop Raiser is playing against him, and not someone else? Do you have another option?

[NotecaddyEdge]

Hi NotecadyEdge!


What are you trying to accomplish with these Action Sequences?

HERO BET-PR CALL TURN
HERO BET-PR RAISE TURN
The final actions for these sequences are not for the note recipient, so basically it seems that you are saying Note Recipient Bet, and the opponent called or raised. I'm not sure what their purpose is.


Definition should calculate the player's aggression % against the preflop raiser.
So I need to make sure that the last Preflop raiser is left against the hero on the Turn, and not someone else. After all, there may be a situation when the preflop raiser, for example, folded the cards on the flop, and the third player remained on the turn against the hero. That is why I created these sequences - definition should count the player's aggression exclusively against the last preflop raiser.
If I didn't need to make sure that the original preflop raiser was against Hero, then Hero Check-Raise, Hero Bet, Hero Reraise sequences would be enough for me.

Considering that every aggressive action must be committed against PR, how else do you see the solution to this problem, except to list all possible actions:

Hero Check > PR bet > Hero Raise
Hero Bet > PR call ("PR Call" sequence need because only there i can use checkbox " Player had to be last preflop raiser")
Hero Bet > PR Raise (same logic for PR detection)
Hero Bet > PR Fold (same logic for PR detection)
PR Check > Hero Bet
PR Bet > Hero Raise


If i wil not use all this PR Call, PR Raise, PR Fold - how can I make sure that when Hero Bet, the Preflop Raiser is playing against him, and not someone else? Do you have another option?

Hi FALOs,

I guess I am confused because in your definition I don't see where you are defining that the 'Hero' needed to make any actions. Can you tell me where you've selected 'Hero' for any of the actions?

[FALOs]

Hi FALOs,

I guess I am confused because in your definition I don't see where you are defining that the 'Hero' needed to make any actions. Can you tell me where you've selected 'Hero' for any of the actions?

I mean Note recipient...

Perhaps I understand what the problem is. The program checks that after the Note recipient's check, it was no longer possible to make a raise, since he ended up in AlIn, that is, it is impossible to check the fulfillment of the all sequences conditions. Ie all sequencess scripts must be executable. If at least one of them is not feasible, the definition does not receive SUCCESS or Opportunity status.
If so, then I figured out the situation.

[NotecaddyEdge]

Hi FALOs,

I guess I am confused because in your definition I don't see where you are defining that the 'Hero' needed to make any actions. Can you tell me where you've selected 'Hero' for any of the actions?

I mean Note recipient...

Perhaps I understand what the problem is. The program checks that after the Note recipient's check, it was no longer possible to make a raise, since he ended up in AlIn, that is, it is impossible to check the fulfillment of the all sequences conditions. Ie all sequencess scripts must be executable. If at least one of them is not feasible, the definition does not receive SUCCESS or Opportunity status.
If so, then I figured out the situation.

Ah OK, then I think my original suggestion to you would work as you intended it to, right? Or am I mistaken?