BA for BetDAQ - Wish list

[EyePeaSea]

If these ring a bell with anyone, then please feel free to show your support - maybe these things will get bumped up the priority ladder


1. Add the BetDAQ Market ID to A1 (as they've done with BA for BF).

2. Provide better market name references when the data is written to the spreadsheet. For example, the 'Win Market' for both the Russian Open and the PGA Money List shows just as 'Win Market', but that makes it confusing when just looking at the Excel sheets. Could we optionally have the full 'path' to an event shown in Cell B1? (e.g. Golf/US Tour/European Tour/Russian Open : Outright / 05:00 Win Market).

3. Add trade logging for trades made in Guardian/Excel, not just the main app (this would be nice for BA-BF as well)

4. Change that god-awful purple colour that reminds me of Parma Violets.

Thanks

Ian

[LinusP]

Volume matched data, per runner and the odds please, Its like trading blind...

[EyePeaSea]

For example, the 'Win Market' for both the Russian Open and the PGA Money List shows just as 'Win Market'

This is ridiculous. I've got 5 golf events and 2 football events in BetDaq and the Guardian and spreadsheet event names are all 'Win Market'.

It would be fine if you only need to trade on dissimilar events (Tiger woods is never going to win F1), but all the top players appear in all the golf events, so how are you supposed to keep track of which is which???

BetDaq is free (I assume BA get some 'recognition' for their work from BetDAQ). But I'm not sure it cuts the mustard to say 'You get what you pay for'. I'd be happy to pay for it, but only if some of the silly UI things are sorted out. I'm . An Event ID would help, but so would the option (maybe in another cell) of concatenating the market hierarchy (Soccer | English Soccer | Premier League | Outright winner - etc.).

[foxwood]

I've found that only happens to me when I have deleted markets from Guardian. Once I have done that then every new market added is missing it's full title.

Only way out seems to be to remove everything from Guardian, close the Guardian window and then restart BA4BD.

A few other quirks but generally it works.

As you say, it is free but you do actually get more than you pay for

[LeTiss]

For sport traders, especially those that trade numerous markets simultaneously, the current set up of BD's API is pretty crap

However, Peter and his team are in a difficult position, as they will no longer be able to offer a service for free, if they make the vast changes we all want

What surprises me though, is that as a BA customer, I've never had an email, or contact from BA asking me a few speculative questions -

How often I use BD?
Would I be prepared to pay for BA BD?
If so, how much would I pay - the full £150 or less?
If no, why not?

Let's be honest, the main bulk of paying customers to BA for BD would be existing customers of BA, so I'm a little surprised Peter's team hasn't gauged the opinions of his current customer base on this matter

[Euler]

We anticipate trying to move the Betdaq version along but that's really reliant on Betdaq and the new API features, no point in spending time fiddling with the old version when the new API will change a few things.

With regard to price, despite being completely free since 2008 we have never really reached a critical mass on the product. If we started charging then it is very likely numbers would fall so we haven't considered charging for it. If we did that to fund development the individual cost would be prohibitive so it's a catch 22 situation at the moment.

When the new API features arrive then that may help you a bit. But in the meantime, requests and comments noted.

[EyePeaSea]

I've found that only happens to me when I have deleted markets from Guardian. Once I have done that then every new market added is missing it's full title.

Thanks for the suggestion. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work for me (or maybe just the markets I'm selecting). I tried removing all the selections, saving the list, closing Guardian and BABD, then coming back in. I still get just 'Win Market' in the Market Name. Ho hum.

Ian

[EyePeaSea]

With regard to price, despite being completely free since 2008 we have never really reached a critical mass on the product. If we started charging then it is very likely numbers would fall so we haven't considered charging for it. If we did that to fund development the individual cost would be prohibitive so it's a catch 22 situation at the moment.

When the new API features arrive then that may help you a bit. But in the meantime, requests and comments noted.

I do understand about the API changing - but is that imminent or are BD a bit fuzzy (maybe this year, maybe next year...) ?

However, I don't really understand the bit about critical mass. Or rather, I understand what you mean, but that isn't how most products are developed (IMO). Most companies don't expect a high ROI straight away - they produce (or improve) a product and that builds the customer base.

So to be fair, I think the catch-22 works both ways. I'm sure more people will use BABD (and pay for it) if the product is improved.

So, would I (and say, another 49 people) pay £1k for BABD, to give you a quick ROI to BA? Probably not. But would 333 people over the next 24 months pay £150? Yes, maybe.

Anyway, thanks for the response. I've watched with interest the number of traders who are becoming increasingly fed up with BetFair - so BetFair are really building the potential BD market for you



Regards

Ian

[jimrobo]

No point developing a product the will be imminently unuseable.

It doesn't matter if you threw a load of money at development and charged for it the problem at the moment is the betdaq api being rather restrictive in what you an actually get out of it. Until the calls/data are provided your hands are tied.

[Euler]

So to be fair, I think the catch-22 works both ways. I'm sure more people will use BABD (and pay for it) if the product is improved.

The next upgrade will be one of several we have done since 2008 and none have improved user numbers. So we don't buy the chuck money at it argument. Not being -ve here or saying we wont do anything, just trying to point out the practicalities of the situation. We could go out and fund a new development head, but we would never get an economic return on it. So we have to progress it within existing constraints.

I'm doing more and more business on Betdaq so the product will inevitably move with that as well, so you can expect improvement over time but a lot hinges on Betdaq at the moment. We don't want to invest in upgrading the old version when the new API is upon us.

One thing the community could do for us it help promote the software a lot, it is free. If we had a lot more customers using it, it would allow us to spend more time on it and understand which direction to take it in.

[jimrobo]

is there any sort of indication of timeline from betdaq???

[Euler]

Would 'soon' suffice

[Euler]

We do have some spec. but not sure at what point it will turn into a new product. We have upgraded elements of BA to bring it nearer, but no point in releasing without new API features.

[jimrobo]

hmmm! The problem is it has been soon for almost 2 years!!!!

[PeterLe]

Hi
Just on a positive note..
Ive tried running auto systems on Betdaq in the past only to be black listed within a min for the number of bets I was firing in!
Just recently I ran all day and no problems, so thats a positive step in my opinion.
All we need now is for the liquidity to pick up
Regards
Peter