Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> Regarding interface, my first thoughts have been to rigidly define PF
> hand range notation (eg, 64+ includes 86o, but not 98 or AA),
This sort of hand-range notation is a very good idea; I've read that
some of the proprietary tools have this sort of notation. It would be
great if you wrote up a spec for the notation and put it in the Wiki!
> 1) Made hand strength: 1st to 3rd pair or straight etc, the quality of
> that hand (eg, nut straight, middle straight, or bad straight). So
> TPTK might be written "1P1" (first pair, best kicker), bottom two
> might be "T3" ("two pair, third best")
This isn't bad, but I find the notation you suggest a bit clunky. I
don't yet have a better proposal, though. ;)
> 2) Draws: what's being drawn to (same notation as above), plus a flag
> if only one hole card is being used. AdKh on 5d6d9d might be "DF1*"
> ("draw to flush, best in category, using just one hole card")
Yeah, to make a pun -- I think this needs to be flushed out more.
Defining the quality and value of draws is difficult: just think about
the complicated language often used by expert players to describe them.
> And maybe a note for counter draws and scary boards etc, so the model
> could include things like "don't bother drawing to an oesd on a 3
> flush board" or "bet TPTK harder on 2-straight, 2-flush board" or
> something.
This is a level of complexity would should probably ignore in the first
implementation, so we don't go overboard before making something usable.
[ Full Example deleted ]
The complexity of your example worries me. It's not readable without
really learning the notation well. You'll note that as I respond to
your subsequent notation proposals above, I get less and less enthralled
with each successive notation suggestion. By the time you are writing
up the hand actions, it's somewhat "assembler like" in the way it reads.
I think it might be better to make an API-oriented version, perhaps
that's a bit Baroque, and then organize it better once we have it as a
tool and can understand it better.
Expert poker players stumble over describing these things and the
distinctions between the quality of various situations or choices of
various actions. I've seen even in the last five years in poker
substantial confusion about what terms mean, and the hunt for simple
terms to describe the complex situations. We shouldn't therefore jump
too quickly to find the "perfect notation", but instead make something
that reads reasonably well to an bot/simulation programmer as an API,
and then worry about the "assembler-style" notation later.
The minimal hand range notations you suggest at the top should
definitely be done, though. That part is simple and clear, I think, and
would fit well with the API I suggest.
--
-- bkuhn
_______________________________________________
Pokersource-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/pokersource-users
