"Steve Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There's a clear difference between a nut straight draw and a bottom > end straight draw.
And also a "four-liner" (as some players call it) or a "one-card-straight". Even if it is to the nuts, it has much less implied odds value against pair-oriented hands. There is also the nut straight draw in the play zone (more likely your opponent will make a smaller straight), and double gutshots which have better implied odds than open-ended but the same number of outs. > hopefully one can come up with a model that makes maximum use of the > clear cut areas, and neatly packages up the complexities into some > "advanced" parameters. Yeah, I think that's right. Getting out-checks to the nuts and other such macros are probably most useful to start. > Yeah. When I picture this tool, I picture something that lets you > drill down, or zoom in, to further levels of detail. So you might > start out a given analysis with a basic model of Hero and a basic > model of Villain, defined as "generic NL10 player". You then start > adding parameters like you have AK and raised PF. You could then zoom > into certain kinds of flops, those where you have a pair, those where > you miss. For certain of those kinds, you could zoom further in, > tweaking the behaviour of the model, like "what if he raises 50% of > the time with bottom pair" etc. Then tweak even further like "what if > he semi bluff raises with flush draws, but only if there's no ace, and > he doesn't hit any pair". Yes, I like this idea a lot. >> 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 > > Pretty much all notation can be graphicalised. I agree; my point there was that the programmer interface should be object, function, or macro oriented, and geared toward the programmers' need. No need for any particular notation other than that. The GUI should have a way of describing things that make it easier. How does pokerstove do it? Is it worth trying to get pokerstove just to see the interface, or is there not much to be learned there that you can't tell us (given that you've used it ;). > The engine for all this seems the most straightforward part, > particularly if PokerSource what I think it does. Yes, I agree. My original essay was trying to make that point -- a good API can be worked up to make the programming easy, and it will make bot writing easier too. -- -- bkuhn _______________________________________________ Pokersource-users mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/pokersource-users
