I'm probably overlooking something really obvious here but I'd really appreciate it if someone could explain why I have such a huge liability. The following has been copied from the log and it's the first part of a program I'm working on...
21/01/2016 20:00:33: Market changed to ChelmC 21st Jan - 20:10 6f Hcap
21/01/2016 20:10:55: Market has been suspended
21/01/2016 20:10:55: Market is in-play
21/01/2016 20:10:56: Market has been unsuspended
21/01/2016 20:10:58: £ 2.00 Back bet placed on Satchville Flyer at 4.6. Fully matched at 5. Ref: 10140
21/01/2016 20:10:58: £ 2.00 Back bet placed on Bogsnog at 7.6. Entirely unmatched when it initially reached the market. Ref: 10141
21/01/2016 20:10:58: £ 2.00 Back bet placed on Divine Call at 5. Fully matched at 5.2. Ref: 10142
21/01/2016 20:10:58: £ 2.00 Back bet placed on Seamster at 4.6. Entirely unmatched when it initially reached the market. Ref: 10143
21/01/2016 20:11:38: £ 4.00 Lay bet placed on Bogsnog at 22. Fully matched at 18.5. Ref: 10144
21/01/2016 20:11:39: £ 4.00 Lay bet placed on Satchville Flyer at 12.5. Fully matched at 10.5. Ref: 10145
21/01/2016 20:11:47: £ 4.00 Lay bet placed on Divine Call at 12. Fully matched at 12. Ref: 10146
21/01/2016 20:12:02: £ 4.00 Lay bet placed on Seamster at 30. Entirely unmatched when it initially reached the market. Ref: 10147
21/01/2016 20:12:04: Your liability would be £2,356.00 which exceeds your maximum liability setting of £1,000.00.
The bet has been cancelled. If you wish to adjust the maximum liability use the settings editor.
21/01/2016 20:12:08: Market has been suspended
I always assumed that, as only one horse can win that the liabilities don't get added together but just calculated on the highest eg Seamster £4 at odds 30, I can't understand why the liability isn't £116 (plus the few £2 back bets).
Hope this makes sense and any help would be appreciated..
Why such a huge liability??
Where you running a automation which was trying to green/close a trade by triggering multiple times?
It looks like as the lay was placed at 30 fine but the price had already risen much higher so was nt matched immediately, it was then cancelled and/or tried to re-lay 2 secs later now at much higher odds which must of been approx 600.0 hence the £2356.00 liability.
It looks like as the lay was placed at 30 fine but the price had already risen much higher so was nt matched immediately, it was then cancelled and/or tried to re-lay 2 secs later now at much higher odds which must of been approx 600.0 hence the £2356.00 liability.
The rejected bet was two seconds after the bet on Seamster so it must have been an attempt to lay something at a much higher price. Based on the liability and the fact you were generally laying with £4, it looks like you probably attempted to lay something at a price of 590. Which would have cost you £2356 if the bet had been accepted and the horse had won the race.johnnycash wrote:21/01/2016 20:12:02: £ 4.00 Lay bet placed on Seamster at 30. Entirely unmatched when it initially reached the market. Ref: 10147
21/01/2016 20:12:04: Your liability would be £2,356.00 which exceeds your maximum liability setting of £1,000.00.
The bet has been cancelled. If you wish to adjust the maximum liability use the settings editor.
21/01/2016 20:12:08: Market has been suspended
I always assumed that, as only one horse can win that the liabilities don't get added together but just calculated on the highest eg Seamster £4 at odds 30, I can't understand why the liability isn't £116 (plus the few £2 back bets).
Now thats spookyBet Angel wrote:The rejected bet was two seconds after the bet on Seamster so it must have been an attempt to lay something at a much higher price. Based on the liability and the fact you were generally laying with £4, it looks like you probably attempted to lay something at a price of 590. Which would have cost you £2356 if the bet had been accepted and the horse had won the race.
-
johnnycash
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 2:48 pm
Very spooky! Thanks for your replies, I was running an automation where I'm trying to get the lay bet matched but the odd one stays unmatched. The way I was trying to get around this problem was to have multiple back up lay bets every couple of seconds with a condition attached that the number of matched bets must be zero in order to fire so I never get more than 1 matched bet. Problem is that the lay bet 2 seconds later maybe a scary 590! (as I've just seen) Ive also tried selecting 3rd best price instead of best market price to increase my chances. Is there a better way of getting an unmatched lay bet matched or 'retriggered' in a really fast efficient way with an in play market? Many thanks..
When a price drifts in-play it can go from 2.0 to 1000 in a split second so no autmation is ever going to catch these situations.
You could add a fixed odds conditon to your lays bets so they only get triggered if the last traded price is below say 30.0 that will prevent you facing a hugh liability if things go wrong.
You could add a fixed odds conditon to your lays bets so they only get triggered if the last traded price is below say 30.0 that will prevent you facing a hugh liability if things go wrong.
Not sure that would work Dallas
Eg Imagine the current back is 5 and the current lay is 990
The last traded price could be say 5.1.
If he then lays for £12:50 at the "Best Avail Price" he could still get caught (unless he has liability set in BA and betfair etc)
Suggestion: He could use the fixed odds (to say dont lay if the avail back price is >5 and then on the lay rule place the bet at the best reverse odds plus 1 tick. That way he would never get matched above 5.1
Regards
Peter
Eg Imagine the current back is 5 and the current lay is 990
The last traded price could be say 5.1.
If he then lays for £12:50 at the "Best Avail Price" he could still get caught (unless he has liability set in BA and betfair etc)
Suggestion: He could use the fixed odds (to say dont lay if the avail back price is >5 and then on the lay rule place the bet at the best reverse odds plus 1 tick. That way he would never get matched above 5.1
Regards
Peter
1 tick above Best 'Reverse' traded Price that isDallas wrote:Well spotted Peter, I did mean to put if the lay price (not last traded price) was below 30.0
but your suggestion of using 1 tick below the best market price will make it far safer
By the way; this also relates to one we have in the 'suggestions' section; ie the ability to green at the reverse price
This strategy could then place a back bet and then green using the reverse traded price once a profit trigger is met
Regards
Peter
-
johnnycash
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 2:48 pm
Thanks so much for the replies, just scanned through them and it's a little out of my depth to be honest so I'll read them again tomorrow in slow time! Much appreciated..