The most profitable bots

[Dallas]

Thought I'd have a search for it and unbelievably I found it in a thread with the same title as this thread minus the word 'The'
viewtopic.php?f=37&t=11918&start=17

[northbound]

That's brilliant

[ruthlessimon]

To make a go at it, you need to be constantly evolving and looking at stuff that no-one else is covering and/or being a bit contrarian.

I think the word "contrarian" is slightly misleading - & invokes thoughts of "only mean-reversion works"

I prefer: "What worked last month? What's worked for the last year?"

I don't care how that strategy then gets labelled, & I guess the fact it worked implies it's contrarian.

That said, there are plenty of issues with the above statements - & personally - finding "fundamental" reasons for these technical biases (assuming they are biases ), is a serious issue for me - as certain members know

[ruthlessimon]

Weird means an angle that no-one talks about.

Although an order flow trader would argue otherwise:

"I have an idea about where price should go, but I want to see someone else go into the trade first"

[northbound]

Weird means an angle that no-one talks about.

Although an order flow trader would argue otherwise:
"I have an idea about where price should go, but I want to see someone else go into the trade first"

Just because someone goes into that trade first, it doesn't mean that the direction will be correct. Or that he went into the trade for your same reason. It might well be an outright bet or lay.

In fact, in the context of botting, it's not really relevant whether you pick the direction correctly on the individual trade. It's not even important that you pick the direction correctly more often than not.

It's important, over many trades, if you made more money with winning trades than lost money with losing trades.

[jimibt]

Weird means an angle that no-one talks about.

Although an order flow trader would argue otherwise:
"I have an idea about where price should go, but I want to see someone else go into the trade first"

Just because someone goes into that trade first, it doesn't mean that the direction will be correct. Or that he went into the trade for your same reason. It might well be an outright bet or lay.

In fact, in the context of botting, it's not really relevant whether you pick the direction correctly on the individual trade. It's not even important that you pick the direction correctly more often than not.

It's important, over many trades, if you made more money with winning trades than lost money with losing trades.

divide and conqer - lol

[ShaunWhite]

Weird means an angle that no-one talks about.

Although an order flow trader would argue otherwise:

There's more ways to automate than there are ways trade manually, everything from looking for blue moon events to HFT. The typically manual techniques you're talking about tend to be less popular as they need 'soft' skills.

To paraphrase northbound, it's a balance between being a little bit right a lot of the time, or being a lot right a little bit of the time.

[ruthlessimon]

Just because someone goes into that trade first, it doesn't mean that the direction will be correct.

(bear in mind I'm a longterm swinger)

Although I haven't seen the data yet, I'm convinced I've improved some highly algorithmic biases (which probably should be automated), by reacting to movement, rather than preempting the movement (in the majority of cases). i.e. getting a "Worse entry", paradoxically, improves the expectancy - because I can get better entries - on the original entries that would've taken an initial drawdown

[ruthlessimon]

There's more ways to automate than there are ways trade manually, everything from looking for blue moon events to HFT. The typically manual techniques you're talking about tend to be less popular as they need 'soft' skills.

To paraphrase northbound, it's a balance between being a little bit right a lot of the time, or being a lot right a little bit of the time.

I do agree. but I have to justify why I'm manual - when I probably should be auto

I'd love to understand a bit more, just why the real big manual traders struggle to go auto - if all edges are "simple"

-Because my edges are indeed simple, but they make up for that - by not being that good

[northbound]

I'd love to understand a bit more, just why the real big manual traders struggle to go auto - if all edges are "simple"

My guess would simply be that most people struggle with technology.

Also most people can feel things but are unable to break them down into numbers or logic constructs.

Also perhaps order flow trades are not that simple to automate: one thing is to take snapshots at certain moments in time and build rules around that.

Writing software to interpret real-time flowing data is a whole other thing entirely.

[ShaunWhite]

I'd love to understand a bit more, just why the real big manual traders struggle to go auto - if all edges are "simple"

Manual traders have a lot more info to go on, and a very powerful fuzzy logic engine in their heads.

btw do they struggle to go auto? Or do they just like the buzz of playing the ladder game more than they like looking at code & data?
Most top manual traders I know also like sport, so far the quants I've encountered aren't so keen. Personally if I had to watch sport all day I'd be looking for another job, gimme a screen full of code & numbers and I'm happy as Larry. People tend to excel at what they enjoy I think, no point persuing a method if you don't enjoy it.

[ruthlessimon]

Manual traders have a lot more info to go on, and a very powerful fuzzy logic engine in their heads.

My guess would simply be that most people struggle with technology. Also most people can feel things but are unable to break them down into numbers or logic constructs.

I was just thinking about how I could actually automate my trading, & even though I'd class it as simple, & definitely automatable (on a market by market basis) - the code would have to be incredibly long to encompass the whole day, & forthcoming days - i.e. stuff I was ready for, but didn't occur

So it's the not the fact I can't break it down into a basic logic construct - but scaling it into a big logic construct would be hard.

Whereas the generic "front run the £10k+ bet for 1 tick" would be easy to automate (albeit might eventually require a investment in Dublin, London or a BF employee for those extra milli's)

-Basically, looking at it now, I think it's actually pretty easy to underestimate just how many "what if's" need to be accounted for if going full auto

[ruthlessimon]

-Basically, looking at it now, I think it's actually pretty easy to underestimate just how many "what if's" need to be accounted for if going full auto

Here's actually quite a nice example from today actually

You've got your pure syndicates in @ 2.68 (most profitable simple bots)

But visually I could see the "intent" of that money (i.e. there's nothing @ 2.72) - & I can override my initial plan (which was to back the fav) - because I know this guy still needs £15k filling

& just automating that line ready for all future occurrences would be a total nightmare

[northbound]

Simon, Most probably the way you trade is more suited to manual trading on the ladder rather than automation.

IMHO automation is more suited to a quantitative approach that targets a specific scenario (the less rules/conditions the better).

[PeterLe]

I always remember a comment from PeterLe on here (for those who don't know he's solely an automated trader who has consistently made very good money year after year on in-running horse racing markets)

He once posted if he were to sell his most profitable bot for £20, buyers would ask for there money back as it was so simple

Thanks Dallas
Yes Id still say that comment was as appropriate as ever.
One way for a new trader is to visualise a race in play and then and then take a view as to what the prices should be.
For example, yesterday I was lucky enough to be guest at LIngfield. For the second or third race an injured jockey took us down to the last fence from home (I think it about two furlongs fair distance anyway)...
As the horses took the last jump I had my mobile connected to the VPS and could see the prices live as the horses jumped..
In this particular race the two horses jumped almost together and I saw the back price on one of them drop to about 1.15 (I couldn't see exactly as the prices were refreshing very fast on the API, but I think it was about 1.15, but I was viewing through my beer googles too!)
There was no way 1.15 was value on that horse which incidentally lost too
Having jumped slightly in front of the other, logic says it should have been below 2, but not 1.15?
Something similar will probably happen again tomorrow and the day after and the day after that. There are at least three ways I can think of off the top of my head to take advantage of that..and thats one way to plant a seed of an idea
Regards
Peter