new: How is this action called?

[js2002]

Hi,

Im PFA, I CBet Flop, Turn i take a check behind, River he leads/bets into me.

1. This isnt a probe or a float right?! How would you call this?
2. How do I check for the checkbehind when building a stat for this?
(cbet_fflop AND ...? AND face bet_river)

thx

Jürgen

[kraada]

You'd have to build a new stat for it.

For your side it's easy:

Look for cbet flop, and check turn (flg_t_check) and in position either on the flop or the turn (flg_t_has_position) and then you face a river bet.

For his side it's a little trickier. He faces a flop cbet, on the turn he checks and doesn't face a bet, then he bets river. It might turn out a little weird in multiway spots but those would be pretty rare in my experience.

[js2002]

js2002_cnt_r_probebet_after_seeing_checkbehind_t

sum(if[
holdem_hand_player_statistics.flg_f_cbet_def_opp AND
holdem_hand_player_statistics.flg_t_check AND
holdem_hand_player_detail.amt_t_bet_facing = 0 AND <---- does this really catch the seen-checkbehind-situations? Is there another column for "not facing bet"?
NOT(holdem_hand_player_detail.flg_t_has_position) AND <--- defined it for oop play, if I don´t that would porudce wierd River situations I guess.
holdem_hand_player_statistics.flg_r_bet AND
holdem_hand_summary.cnt_players_f=2 AND
holdem_hand_summary.cnt_players_t=2 AND
holdem_hand_summary.cnt_players_r=2
, 1, 0])

Should I check for NOT holdem_hand_player_statistics.flg_t_cbet_def_opp

[js2002]

1. I found holdem_hand_player_detail.amt_t_bet_facing > 0 and made it to = 0, is this correct?
Is <= 0 better because maybe pt3 sees "no bet facing" as -1 ?!?!

2. Restriction of number of players isnt good huh?
Maybe only a River HU restriction?!

[kraada]

You could use the player restriction, but I don't think it's going to be 100% necessary.

Actually an easier way to see "and doesn't face a bet" is to do use:
lookup_actions_t.action LIKE 'X'

This says your action string on the turn is just check and nothing else. If you faced a bet there would be some other action you'd have to make (call, raise or fold), so you can deduce that it's impossible for you to have faced a bet that way. Then you can also simplify and you don't need flg_t_check either, since this covers that case as well.

[js2002]

http://rapidshare.com/files/222074136/P ... 3stat.html

check this out!

[js2002]

a new idea:

I want to include "he got called AND won SD"

1. since I heard that w$sd is bugged, ca I build this anyways?

2. how do I check for "got called"? f.e. not face_raise and not fold and saw sd, is this good?

[kraada]

(1) Which bug are you referring to?

(2) That should work.

[js2002]

(1) O...fan told us in another thread that the denumerator of this stat is bugged. I dont really know. The results of the stat seem correct.

[kraada]

I'm not aware of any bug that would cause problems in this spot.