I think I have found serious bugs in BetAngel

[spreadbetting]

Why do I have to change the way I bet to suit the software?

Why should the software change to suit you, you're pressing green the field and that's what it's doing. If you're happy to ignore certain liabilities on your book, green the selections you want separately not the field.

[AllTheGearNoIdea]

Because you dont need to include the 1000 odds runner that is no longer in the game!

Surely you can see that??

[to75ne]

Post by AllTheGearNoIdea » Mon Jan 04, 2016 3:43 pm
Why do I have to change the way I bet to suit the software?


because the software does not do what you wish. your problem really is a non problem/not worth the effort why bother?

if not happy dont use this software try a different venders software or no software at all

[AllTheGearNoIdea]

No that is not right - it does do what I want - but the program is not doing it correctly.

In my example with the photo finish - you would not want to - or even need to - include the 1000 runner would you?

And your answer is use another program? Why? BetAngel is the best software for my needs.

If I had a Rolls Royce and the door doesnt close properly, surely you fix the door rather than buy a budget car?

[spreadbetting]

How is the software to know something is no longer in the game, how does it know it's in a photo finish? Just because something hits 1000 doesn't mean it won't win.

The softare is doing what you're asking it to and greening the field, the software has options to green individual runners but you choose not to use them.

[maycontainnuts]

Why not pester Betfair and ask them to reduce minimum bet size to 1p, should be easy enough. Afterall that's the core issue here isn't it?

[AllTheGearNoIdea]

The other greening options have exactly the same problem.

Give me an example of when you can see a 1000 back bet with nothing on the lay side and you would bet it to win.?

As Euler said, at least have the option to green up if odds are below a given price eg 999?

And in case your wondering Ive used most the other programs out there and they green up as I am suggesting. But I want to use BetAngel.

So what do you guys do? Or have you all got betting banks in the £1000's?

[spreadbetting]

Give me an example of when you can see a 1000 back bet with nothing on the lay side and you would bet it to win.?

1000 is the highest odds on the Betfair you will never see anything on the lay side because the odds don't go higher.

[AllTheGearNoIdea]

I think youre just missing the point of what I am saying on purpose.
So fustrating...

I cannot see why you would ever bet a 1000 odds runner.
To say that they may win is true, but how many have actually genuinely had odds of 1000 and then won? and I dont mean when youre trading and the price spikes because that is entirely different to what I saying, isnt it.

[Euler]

People use odds of 1000 to free up cash by reducing a liability and lots of cross matches occur at 1000 as well. There are lots of reasons to back at 1000.

[Euler]

I have said we will look at it and put something on the development roster, but we have to assess how it impacts everything else before we attempt to make a change and also there are other items ahead of it at any one time. It's never been requested before.

[spreadbetting]

I think youre just missing the point of what I am saying on purpose.
So fustrating...

I cannot see why you would ever bet a 1000 odds runner.
To say that they may win is true, but how many have actually genuinely had odds of 1000 and then won? and I dont mean when youre trading and the price spikes because that is entirely different to what I saying, isnt it.

There are plenty of reasons why people bet at 1000 even if it's just to free up exposure to bet again.

I'm sure people can see the point you're making about what YOU see as no hopers and don't want to green them up but it's been explained to you 1000 is the highest odds so there's no way of betting under £2 on them. Plus if you press green the field it will do just that and try to green up the field not ignore runners. All the examples you've posted have only ever had two runners backed, I've no idea why you don't just green up that selection on it's own , rather than greening the field, as that seems to be, and would do, exactly what you want to do.

Either way the current green the field doesn't have the option to disregard parts of the field for now, and as Euler says he'll put it forward to the development roster.

[AllTheGearNoIdea]

People use odds of 1000 to free up cash by reducing a liability and lots of cross matches occur at 1000 as well. There are lots of reasons to back at 1000.

Really?? you back at what size stakes at 1000 odds? I'd love to see an example of that!
Unless its a bookmaker trading with his millions of course...

Greening individual runners doesnt solve the problem.

So what youre saying is
"If you dont like it go somehwere else, youre not welcome here.
There is no problem with the software because we are all traders, not punters, and we have huge banks anyway"

ok, thanks.

[spreadbetting]

Greening individual runners doesnt solve the problem.

Why not? Your examples have all been two runners and one of them you didn't want to green up. Everyone else seems to manage with no problem.

So what youre saying is
"If you dont like it go somehwere else, youre not welcome here.
There is no problem with the software because we are all traders, not punters, and we have huge banks anyway"

ok, thanks.

Euler has said the software doesn't have the option to ignore those runners and will put it forward to the development team. I fail to see how that translates to "If you dont like it go somehwere else, youre not welcome here"

[AllTheGearNoIdea]

Because youre trying to make me look a fool.

If you dont like the beer dont drink in my pub.

loud and clear.