Turn action sequences issue
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    197

    Default Turn action sequences issue

    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.
    Attached Files Attached Files

  2. #2
    Moderator NotecaddyEdge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    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?

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    197

    Default

    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?

  4. #4
    Moderator NotecaddyEdge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FALOs View Post
    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?

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    197

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by FALOs; 12-02-2020 at 06:51 AM.

  6. #6
    Moderator NotecaddyEdge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FALOs View Post
    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?

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    197

    Default

    Hey!


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


    You mean 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?
    If so,, then in your version I do not see a check that Note Recipient remains 1 on 1 with the original preflop raiser, and not with someone else, because FLOP multiway pot is allowed.
    "Not Recipient" not suitable, we need a specific Preflop raiser in his place.

    This is why I created all these Recipient Bet> PR Call, Recipien Bet - PR Fold, Recipient Bet> PR Raise. (These are examples for situations where Recipient OOP)


    I do not exclude that I could not catch something important from your words, because of the language barrier, although I try to reread your advice very carefully. But the key point of my definition is that Recipient should be left alone on the Turn with the preflop raiser. Your advice is more appropriate for the case when we don't care who the Note Recipient is up against. Then everything is much simpler. But this is not my case.
    Or have I missed something important in your words somewhere?
    Last edited by FALOs; 12-03-2020 at 07:36 AM.

  8. #8
    Moderator NotecaddyEdge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FALOs View Post
    Hey!


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


    You mean this:



    If so,, then in your version I do not see a check that Note Recipient remains 1 on 1 with the original preflop raiser, and not with someone else, because FLOP multiway pot is allowed.
    "Not Recipient" not suitable, we need a specific Preflop raiser in his place.

    This is why I created all these Recipient Bet> PR Call, Recipien Bet - PR Fold, Recipient Bet> PR Raise. (These are examples for situations where Recipient OOP)


    I do not exclude that I could not catch something important from your words, because of the language barrier, although I try to reread your advice very carefully. But the key point of my definition is that Recipient should be left alone on the Turn with the preflop raiser. Your advice is more appropriate for the case when we don't care who the Note Recipient is up against. Then everything is much simpler. But this is not my case.
    Or have I missed something important in your words somewhere?
    Could you just set the note for heads-up on the flop? Or does that reduce opportunities that you wanted to be included?

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    197

    Default

    Could you just set the note for heads-up on the flop? Or does that reduce opportunities that you wanted to be included?

    This is a very good question and I have been thinking a little this time ....
    My main reason for creating this definition was the idea to create separate Agr statistics. Freq% when a player is a preflop raiser, or when vice versa - he plays against a preflop raiser. I've noticed that some players have very different aggression depending on who had the initiative preflop - he or his opponent.

    And if I want to get such statistics - would it be correct to allow all types of flops (HU and MWP) or just allow only HU at once?
    If the creators of HM made such a stat - what would they do?

  10. #10
    Moderator NotecaddyEdge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FALOs View Post
    Could you just set the note for heads-up on the flop? Or does that reduce opportunities that you wanted to be included?

    This is a very good question and I have been thinking a little this time ....
    My main reason for creating this definition was the idea to create separate Agr statistics. Freq% when a player is a preflop raiser, or when vice versa - he plays against a preflop raiser. I've noticed that some players have very different aggression depending on who had the initiative preflop - he or his opponent.

    And if I want to get such statistics - would it be correct to allow all types of flops (HU and MWP) or just allow only HU at once?
    If the creators of HM made such a stat - what would they do?
    Hmm, well in my opinion you would want them separated, because I think aggression tendencies would be very different heads-up in comparison to multiway.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-21-2015, 04:27 PM
  2. new definition with Action Sequences dilemma
    By tonitza in forum NoteCaddy
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-06-2012, 03:52 AM
  3. Action sequences, Previous actions, Actions tabs
    By gareth336 in forum NoteCaddy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-05-2012, 05:47 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-28-2012, 03:29 PM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-03-2012, 07:00 AM

Posting Permissions

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