You are good at this game of putting words in another's mouth, turning them into the villain, then coming back with a cheap shot and feeling/looking vindicated. I was stating that including checks into an aggression statistic and redefining aggression is wrong therefore I would not trust the stat; regardless if it was your product or any other product. If there is a flaw in a statistic or someone is attempting to redefine a stat then the user should be made aware of it. I am sorry but there is no easy, politically correct way to state this without you drawing inference but that is not going to prevent me from at the least pointing this out and alerting the user. Attempting to redefine a core poker statistic is opening a can of worms therefore you should at least be in position to argue/prove your point.

You completely disregarded my previous post, despite quoting it, and went back to your same verbiage:

The bottom line is that checking is neither an aggressive or passive action and is dependent upon a further action (raise, call, or fold).

Action
Player A checks and Player B checks behind

Fact
HEM considers Player A's action as Passive.
PT3 considers Player A's action as Neutral.

PT3 Reasoning:
We cannot determine the user's intent whether this was to be a check raise (aggressive) or check call/fold (passive) therefore it is ruled neutral without further action. Ruling it as a passive action when Player A's intent was to check/raise runs the risk of having double the damage. +1 passive instead of +1 aggressive which is a 2 point swing. (Some would even consider a check/raise a doubly aggressive action, in which case, it would be a greater than 2 point swing, but we will not get into that...)

Someone much smarter then myself, created Aggression Factor, probably before I even started playing poker. There is a reason that Checks are not an included action in the Aggression Factor calculation and that is the same reason why its not included in Aggression Frequency. Therefore by including checks in Aggression Frequency, not only are you stating that my definition is wrong but also that Aggression Factor is wrong and the definition of Aggression is wrong.

Based on your argument, you should redefine Aggression Factor as (Bets + Raises / Calls + Checks) which would be wrong and the same arguments for why it is wrong apply to Aggression Frequency.

So the logical question is, if Aggression Factor does not included "Folds" into their calculation then why is it included in Aggression Frequency. This goes back to why Aggression Frequency was created in the first place. It was created because a user who constantly check/folds could have an artificially high AF therefore we needed to fill that void. By defining Aggression Frequency as:

Bets + Raises / Bets + Raises + Folds + Calls

We were able to fill that void and provide a complete picture of a users aggression WITHOUT re-defining aggression (which you appear to have done).

By adding "checks" into the equation IS completely missing the point. It IS wrong and provides an artificially low aggression. If you want to know how often a player checks then look at another, non-aggression related statistic.

You have stated that there were "professionals" that wanted checks included in this statistic. Considering they are the driving force behind the stat, I also presume that they are the ones that would be in the best position to argue why checks should be included in any aggression stat.

I would be more than happy to discuss/argue this against whomever the professional(s) was/were and the ones that did the complete research. Until that happens and someone can provide me with statistical proof that goes against the hours and hours of my research and analysis, I will stick to the fact that PokerTracker has it correct.

I will give you the last word...

Best regards,

Derek

Well clearly both approaches have their drawbacks and merits, and it's up to the individual user - PT3 is very good here as you can created your custom stat and include it in the hud. There's not one correct or incorrect stat here, it all comes down to interpretation.

PT3's point about check-raising is a fair one, but is it much different to calling the flop with the intention of raising a blank turn?

Yes it is and here is why. Aggression is an action which forces the opponent to act. A passive action is a direct result of an aggressive action. Without an aggressive action there cannot be a passive action. The act of neither an aggressive or passive action is considered neutral.

Calling a flop bet is a passive action that it is a direct response to the villain's aggressive action whereas a check behind is not a response to any type of aggression therefore cannot be deemed passive.

The same reasoning is applied to why most (if not all) people completely disregard any type of pre-flop aggression. ie) Total Aggression Factor does not include pre-flop. A limp is calculated as a call which is not the direct result of any type of aggression therefore completely rendering any type of pre-flop aggression calculation skewed and meaningless.

Best regards,

Derek

So if 2 players check down the flop, turn, and river, they were neutral, not passive?

From PT3's perspective, yes. Checking actions will not affect PT3's version AFq at all.