WHAT ON EARTH HAPPENED ??
-
CLOWNSHOES
- Posts: 173
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2014 8:04 pm
Whilst i understand i am a novice using guardian (literally my first and probably last time) you can quite clearly see that it says 1 pound liability so regardless of how wrong i may have been i wasnt all that bothered because i assumed at most i'd lose a pound and perhaps see where i'd gone wrong and tweak it. With it being 1.01 i obviously wasnt expecting much action but i'd had a decent day and spent a few hours reading people discussing automations on this forum so i thought id mess around and familiarise myself with the basic functions of the software. You can imagine my absolute horror when i seen that the bot had been laying things at 990/1. So yeah, what is the point in the software claiming that my liability is 1 pound then proceeding to lay things at 990/1 ? You think you're safe to play around and only ever expose yourself to a maximum of 1 pound liability only to find that actually the bot just does whatever the hell it wants and you're gunna be liable for any ammount it sees fit.
CS Guardian is one of the best features on BA, it can master diciplne over your mindset, i use it to pre race trade upto last minute, it greens up positions for me, if i pushed to trade in play by acident it will just green up, football after first goal is scored in match green up, it lays scorelines at certain times of the match, it will open trades for you etc etc once mastered and one taking time to know its functions then it is your trading best friend, i allow it to open -£1200 liabilitys for me and it shuts them down to zero when conditions tell it to, take timeCLOWNSHOES wrote:Whilst i understand i am a novice using guardian (literally my first and probably last time) you can quite clearly see that it says 1 pound liability so regardless of how wrong i may have been i wasnt all that bothered because i assumed at most i'd lose a pound and perhaps see where i'd gone wrong and tweak it. With it being 1.01 i obviously wasnt expecting much action but i'd had a decent day and spent a few hours reading people discussing automations on this forum so i thought id mess around and familiarise myself with the basic functions of the software. You can imagine my absolute horror when i seen that the bot had been laying things at 990/1. So yeah, what is the point in the software claiming that my liability is 1 pound then proceeding to lay things at 990/1 ? You think you're safe to play around and only ever expose yourself to a maximum of 1 pound liability only to find that actually the bot just does whatever the hell it wants and you're gunna be liable for any ammount it sees fit.
-
bennyboy351
- Posts: 332
- Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 6:01 pm
Sadly, like every other form of computerised/automated'gizmo' out there, Guardian can only be as good as the person programming it!
Now please don't take the above as an insult - it isn't and it is not meant to be!
What I'm trying to point out, is that software like Guardian can only do what you tell it to do. There are many, many different rules you can apply to make it do a whole raft of things BUT if YOU make an error, then don't expect Guardian to point it out!
Like you, I have lost money when using Guardian. But I learned from what were, in the end, my mistakes and I still use Guardian now and it works well for me, me being a newbie too!
Might I suggest that when starting out with Guardian, that you use Practice Mode and realistic staking too? That way, you get to sort out all the little bugs you may inadvertantly put in, without losing loads of dosh!
Hope the above helps?
All the best
George.
Now please don't take the above as an insult - it isn't and it is not meant to be!
What I'm trying to point out, is that software like Guardian can only do what you tell it to do. There are many, many different rules you can apply to make it do a whole raft of things BUT if YOU make an error, then don't expect Guardian to point it out!
Like you, I have lost money when using Guardian. But I learned from what were, in the end, my mistakes and I still use Guardian now and it works well for me, me being a newbie too!
Might I suggest that when starting out with Guardian, that you use Practice Mode and realistic staking too? That way, you get to sort out all the little bugs you may inadvertantly put in, without losing loads of dosh!
Hope the above helps?
All the best
George.
-
CLOWNSHOES
- Posts: 173
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2014 8:04 pm
Alpha - Thanks for the response, Laying of scores is actually one of the reasons i wanted to get to grips with the guardian software.
Benny - How dare you ? i've never been so offended in all my days ! LOL, nah i completely understand mate infact i was almost 100% sure i would be doing something wrong .... which is why i had set the liability to $1 and tried to do it on something that wouldnt see much action.
My bogus programming or being wrong is not what i have issue with because id accepted that these outcomes were both highly probable. I just dont understand how it can say clear as day that my liability is $1 then suddenly i lose 267x that ammount ?
With hindsight i'd definately have used practice mode but as i say i was prepared to lose $1 a few times over to better understand the software how am i supposed to account for the machine deciding to suddenly increase my liability 267x ?
I'd still like to better understand it but its fairly confidence shattering when it says clear as day that my liability is $1 and i suddenly lose $267 ... theres absolutely no way i could leave that software running with any confidence at all now.
Benny - How dare you ? i've never been so offended in all my days ! LOL, nah i completely understand mate infact i was almost 100% sure i would be doing something wrong .... which is why i had set the liability to $1 and tried to do it on something that wouldnt see much action.
My bogus programming or being wrong is not what i have issue with because id accepted that these outcomes were both highly probable. I just dont understand how it can say clear as day that my liability is $1 then suddenly i lose 267x that ammount ?
With hindsight i'd definately have used practice mode but as i say i was prepared to lose $1 a few times over to better understand the software how am i supposed to account for the machine deciding to suddenly increase my liability 267x ?
I'd still like to better understand it but its fairly confidence shattering when it says clear as day that my liability is $1 and i suddenly lose $267 ... theres absolutely no way i could leave that software running with any confidence at all now.
Can you attach a screenshot of the "General & Parameters" pages of the automation you set up - i understand if you dont want to incase of giving away a stratergy but with just the screen shot you have sent its hard to tell what was possibly incorrectly programmed 99% of the time it just as simple as a one digit typo or some conflicting info somwhere within your rule.
-
bennyboy351
- Posts: 332
- Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 6:01 pm
If its any consolation, I'm seeing something I can't fathom, in that I lay a selection, let it go in play, let it take the back-bet money, then find I get Zero return instead of the expected profit! Oh well, I'm sure (I HOPE!!!) I'll work it out! 
Are you hedging with your back bet for a equal profit on all runners or just using the exact same back stake as your lay stake and therefore just creating a free bet with profit only on that particular runner only if it wins?bennyboy351 wrote:If its any consolation, I'm seeing something I can't fathom, in that I lay a selection, let it go in play, let it take the back-bet money, then find I get Zero return instead of the expected profit! Oh well, I'm sure (I HOPE!!!) I'll work it out!
-
bennyboy351
- Posts: 332
- Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 6:01 pm
You got it Dallas! I'm ticking the 'Green Up' box, but then, I put the exact same back bet in as the Lay Bet. Result - ZERO! LOL I class that as a 'whoops!' . Cheers, George.
To Clownshoes
As previous posters have said it is difficult to help without seeing all steps involved and given that there are back bets matched there must have been other actions apart from laying every selection at 1.01.
Not sure if any of the following can shed any light on the issue for you but these are my thoughts...
Perhaps the rule fired correctly and placed lay bets of £100 on each selection at 1.01 - none of which ever got matched - the other bets appear to have been done by a different rule or manually.
Presumably the race didn't go in play but if it did then all of the 1.01 lays would have been automatically cancelled (or when you greened up).
Your P&L shows back bets of £98.06 being placed on each of 3 selections all at a time of 23:07.
Can you confirm how these got placed?
How come all at 23:07?
Did you have another rule to back all that isn't shown or something similar?
Then we see lay bets being placed at 23:08 which are all greening up bets and all look correct if the prices shown were the best available at the time.
Did you manually press green all?
Or did you have an automation rule to green up that isn't shown in your screenshot?
Let's use Celtic Lord as an example...
And let's say there was only one back order in the market and this was someone trying to back £2 at odds of 990.
Someone hoping for someone else to make a mistake.
The US markets are often very empty until the last seconds before the off so this is entirely possible.
1: Your automation places a £100 lay bet at 1.01 - stays in market as unmatched
2: At 23:07 you enter a back bet of £98.06 at odds of 7.68 - we are not clear how this was done.
Apart from the £2 sitting at 990 yours is the only other back order at this time.
3: Someone fancies these odds and matches your back bet or, perhaps there were existing lay orders that you matched with your £98.06.
The back side of the market now only contains the first persons back bet of £2 sitting at 990.
4: At 23:08 you issue a Green Up command - again, we are not clear how this was done.
So, given that the only available lay odds were 990, Betangel correctly greened up at these odds with a stake of £0.75.
At this point your lay of £100 at 1.01 would still be waiting to be matched or was perhaps cancelled by your green all command. It would never have been macthed in any case.
The other 3 selections would have gone through a similar process.
So I would be asking how and why the back bets were placed?
And then, why and how was a green up command issued into a market with very few available prices?
Whether what I've written helps or not always follow the golden rule when designing a new automation - test, test and test again as much as possible in practice mode!
As previous posters have said it is difficult to help without seeing all steps involved and given that there are back bets matched there must have been other actions apart from laying every selection at 1.01.
Not sure if any of the following can shed any light on the issue for you but these are my thoughts...
Perhaps the rule fired correctly and placed lay bets of £100 on each selection at 1.01 - none of which ever got matched - the other bets appear to have been done by a different rule or manually.
Presumably the race didn't go in play but if it did then all of the 1.01 lays would have been automatically cancelled (or when you greened up).
Your P&L shows back bets of £98.06 being placed on each of 3 selections all at a time of 23:07.
Can you confirm how these got placed?
How come all at 23:07?
Did you have another rule to back all that isn't shown or something similar?
Then we see lay bets being placed at 23:08 which are all greening up bets and all look correct if the prices shown were the best available at the time.
Did you manually press green all?
Or did you have an automation rule to green up that isn't shown in your screenshot?
Let's use Celtic Lord as an example...
And let's say there was only one back order in the market and this was someone trying to back £2 at odds of 990.
Someone hoping for someone else to make a mistake.
The US markets are often very empty until the last seconds before the off so this is entirely possible.
1: Your automation places a £100 lay bet at 1.01 - stays in market as unmatched
2: At 23:07 you enter a back bet of £98.06 at odds of 7.68 - we are not clear how this was done.
Apart from the £2 sitting at 990 yours is the only other back order at this time.
3: Someone fancies these odds and matches your back bet or, perhaps there were existing lay orders that you matched with your £98.06.
The back side of the market now only contains the first persons back bet of £2 sitting at 990.
4: At 23:08 you issue a Green Up command - again, we are not clear how this was done.
So, given that the only available lay odds were 990, Betangel correctly greened up at these odds with a stake of £0.75.
At this point your lay of £100 at 1.01 would still be waiting to be matched or was perhaps cancelled by your green all command. It would never have been macthed in any case.
The other 3 selections would have gone through a similar process.
So I would be asking how and why the back bets were placed?
And then, why and how was a green up command issued into a market with very few available prices?
Whether what I've written helps or not always follow the golden rule when designing a new automation - test, test and test again as much as possible in practice mode!
-
CLOWNSHOES
- Posts: 173
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2014 8:04 pm
Thanks for the responses guys ... sorry i didnt respond sooner but i decided to go out and watch the football last night ! It wasnt supposed to do anything fancy just drop the money in so i could see it on the ladder and know ( 
) that it worked. Im pretty sure i know what happened now ... its dumped loads of offsets into the market at hideous odds and immediately left me with a bad red up .... A slightly more expensive lesson than i'd hoped for but a lesson none the less. Laugh, move on, learn from mistakes, earn it back the correct way by trading well.
Funny sidenote : It would have literally taken longer to burn the money
) that it worked. Im pretty sure i know what happened now ... its dumped loads of offsets into the market at hideous odds and immediately left me with a bad red up .... A slightly more expensive lesson than i'd hoped for but a lesson none the less. Laugh, move on, learn from mistakes, earn it back the correct way by trading well. Funny sidenote : It would have literally taken longer to burn the money
If its your offsets that are being placed at hideous odds (and not your opening bets) this can be caused by using stakes under £2, offset lays are placed at 990/1 and offset backs drop in at 1.01, obvioustly this is only a possibility without seeing your full automation set up i cant say for sure.