Trap numbers and text comparison

[iggypop37]

this is what I came up with - not tried it out yet - but it does seem to be an oddity with BA

[iggypop37]

I'm late to the party but if you could do (fav trap - 2nd fav trap) and the result was either 1 or - 1 then it would work in any situation? Better still abs ((fav trap - 2nd fav trap)) = 1

thats worth a try. You would need to extract the trap number of fav and 2nd 2nd fav. thank you .

learning new skills all the time !

[Dabbla]

Here’s an example file I created the other day, I thought you had it sorted ,so didn’t post.

This file extracts the trap number from the runner’s name.
The second rule only extracts the favs trap number and has 2 SVs that +- 1 to the fav trap SV.
Rule 3 bets the second fav if it’s in a trap next to the fav.

It will bet £1 back @ odds of 1000, this was just for testing.

TRAPS.baf

EDIT > if you use Shauns solution In rule 1 ,it should work without any problems.

[iggypop37]

Yeah - I tries to simplify it down as much as I could but it still doesnt work. Please see the screenshots

Here’s an example file I created the other day, I thought you had it sorted ,so didn’t post.

This file extracts the trap number from the runner’s name.
The second rule only extracts the favs trap number and has 2 SVs that +- 1 to the fav trap SV.
Rule 3 bets the second fav if it’s in a trap next to the fav.

It will bet £1 back @ odds of 1000, this was just for testing.

TRAPS.baf

EDIT > if you use Shauns solution In rule 1 ,it should work without any problems.

[Dabbla]

I was half a sleep when I wrote that, I should not have added the edit to my last post. The file should work fine as it is, you would just need to add the conditions you want.

Your screen shot should look like this >

igtrap1.PNG

TEST_TRAP = TRAP_PLUS & TRAP_MIN
NOT, TEST_TRAP = TEST_TRAP

I have added a rule for the fav, if I understand correctly, it should just be a case of adding your conditions to rule, Back 1 and 2.
Run the file in practice mode to see if it’s what you want then add your condition if its correct.

igtrap2.PNG

TRAPS 2.baf

[iggypop37]

still having problems with this I cant seem to solve,. Ive identified the favourite trap correctly, eg the favourite trap, and i'm now nesting that in a group of conditions with adjacent traps, the idea being that there must be runners in the adjacent traps for the bet to fire. i have tried to do this using check for volume of selection in the adjacent traps. but its still not firing !

TIA

[MemphisFlash]

maybe you need to do something like this
which identifies what trap the fav is in,
and also what trap the 2nd is in.
you might need to create 36 signals so you know where every dog
is in relation to the fav and what trap it is in.

Capture.PNG

[iggypop37]

Thank you Memphis. I'm not interested in where the 2nd fav is, I've moved beyond that.

Just trying to make sure that the adjacent trap(s) to the fav actually house a runner and are not vacant traps if you see what I mean.

(Already got 114 conditions so a few more won't hurt !)

And of course to only trigger a bet if no vacant traps

(I'll persevere !)

[ShaunWhite]

Thank you Memphis. I'm not interested in where the 2nd fav is, I've moved beyond that.

Just trying to make sure that the adjacent trap(s) to the fav actually house a runner and are not vacant traps if you see what I mean.

(Already got 114 conditions so a few more won't hurt !)

And of course to only trigger a bet if no vacant traps

(I'll persevere !)

So you want the 1st and 2nd favs in adjacent traps, and neither the 1st or 2nd fav having adjacent vacent traps ? ie neighbours and both have two neighbours.?

If so I'd simplify that to setting 3 true/false flags :
The favs proximity test abs(fav1Trap-Fav2Trap)=1
And the adjacent vacant trap tests for the 1st and 2nd fav.

And then test if all 3 are True to set your 'market is good' indicator to True. Then bet based on that.

To save a lot of editting I'd probably set 6 seperate 'Trap occupied' true/false flags too. Then if you change how they're tested (vol might be null not zero, or check a price not between 1 and 1000) you only do it in 6 places rather than everywhere the condition is used.

Trying to do it in one mega condition makes it hard to see the wood for the trees. It's always better to break it down to descrete tasks and then AND or OR them, and it's easier to debug and maintain.

[iggypop37]

Thank you Memphis. I'm not interested in where the 2nd fav is, I've moved beyond that.

Just trying to make sure that the adjacent trap(s) to the fav actually house a runner and are not vacant traps if you see what I mean.

(Already got 114 conditions so a few more won't hurt !)

And of course to only trigger a bet if no vacant traps

(I'll persevere !)

So you want the 1st and 2nd favs in adjacent traps, and neither the 1st or 2nd fav having adjacent vacent traps ? ie neighbours and both have two neighbours.?

If so I'd simplify that to setting 3 true/false flags :
The favs proximity test abs(fav1Trap-Fav2Trap)=1
And the adjacent vacant trap tests for the 1st and 2nd fav.

And then test if all 3 are True to set your 'market is good' indicator to True. Then bet based on that.

To save a lot of editting I'd probably set 6 seperate 'Trap occupied' true/false flags too. Then if you change how they're tested (vol might be null not zero, or check a price not between 1 and 1000) you only do it in 6 places rather than everywhere the condition is used.

Trying to do it in one mega condition makes it hard to see the wood for the trees. It's always better to break it down to descrete tasks and then AND or OR them, and it's easier to debug and maintain.

Hi Shaun. no its much simpler goal now. Just trying to make sure that the favourite has not got a a vacant trap next to it.
so if fav in trap 5, 4 and 6 have got dogs in etc, if fav in trap 1, then 2 has dogs in !!

I guess signals could be the way to go

[ShaunWhite]

Hi Shaun. no its much simpler goal now. Just trying to make sure that the favourite has not got a a vacant trap next to it.
so if fav in trap 5, 4 and 6 have got dogs in etc, if fav in trap 1, then 2 has dogs in !!

I guess signals could be the way to go

I suspect the vacant trap has a volume of Null rather than zero, you might have to settle for there being 6 runners. Unless you might what to switch to favs that have got a bit of space around them.

Is this UK dogs or Aus too ? Because there might be 8 runners.

I like the Aus dogs and don't do so well on UK. I trade about 400 Aus dogs a day, but last night I managed to do 500 and £27½ grand turnover, I was 1/66th of the market

Tricky though, I don't know if yesterday was typical but of the 147 UK dog races 60 of them had less than 6 runners and 7 of them had just 4

[napshnap]

Hi Shaun. no its much simpler goal now. Just trying to make sure that the favourite has not got a a vacant trap next to it.
so if fav in trap 5, 4 and 6 have got dogs in etc, if fav in trap 1, then 2 has dogs in !!

I guess signals could be the way to go

... I was 1/66th of the market

Tricky though, I don't know if yesterday was typical but of the 147 UK dog races 60 of them had less than 6 runners and 7 of them had just 4

Market Maker in the making! )


Noticed that too, here's some stats: all types, less than 6 runners/6 runners races ~%

Jun 22/23 9,5/25,5
Jul 22/23 11,6/34,4(!)

[iggypop37]

Hi Shaun. no its much simpler goal now. Just trying to make sure that the favourite has not got a a vacant trap next to it.
so if fav in trap 5, 4 and 6 have got dogs in etc, if fav in trap 1, then 2 has dogs in !!

I guess signals could be the way to go

I suspect the vacant trap has a volume of Null rather than zero, you might have to settle for there being 6 runners. Unless you might what to switch to favs that have got a bit of space around them.

Is this UK dogs or Aus too ? Because there might be 8 runners.

I like the Aus dogs and don't do so well on UK. I trade about 400 Aus dogs a day, but last night I managed to do 500 and £27½ grand turnover, I was 1/66th of the market

Tricky though, I don't know if yesterday was typical but of the 147 UK dog races 60 of them had less than 6 runners and 7 of them had just 4

Hi Shaun

yeah im already fairly tight with my criteria for races so specifying 6 runners only is going to cause some issues. (UK only at present).

hopefully theres a way around this.

[iggypop37]

here you see where i have tried to use the trap test number, as a signal condition, and no no that hasnt worked either !!

[iggypop37]

thinking along the lines of using the trap test result (which is an SV) , as a guide to prohibiting the bet, eg in this case , "if fav is T4 0r T6 then "NO BET"

(sorry if im going over old ground here)