You cant help congratulating the winner...but feel very sorry for the loserRegards
Peter
Edit : A real lesson for anyone playing around with automation: Test Test and Test again in Practice mode
The fat fingers thread
I never like reading of these type of errors.
It doesnt sit easy with me, than someone has made a huge mistake - and is allowed to do so, by either the software or the site.
I would much prefer, the layer, to be penalised in some way .. if the average lay price had been 14, maybe a max of 5 times that price, up to a max of 50/1 .. no one is going to lay, 500x the 'true' price, and it just discourages new traders, and the guy who made the mistake.
I appreciate its a gambling exchange, and people shouldnt be molly-coddled, but, there have to be limits .. or at least should be.
Often, there are trap bets, on ill-liquid markets, and people populate the lay side, with 102 for 8 quid, when its 1.01 to back.
I really think, after 15yrs, the exchange should have matured enough, to have a 'charter' for what is accepted practice, and what can be 'palped' or at least penalised.
I am sure, nothing will change. But, if Apple, was mis-quoted at $0.30c, and someone ordered a few billion shares, the order would have been un-wound.
It doesnt sit easy with me, than someone has made a huge mistake - and is allowed to do so, by either the software or the site.
I would much prefer, the layer, to be penalised in some way .. if the average lay price had been 14, maybe a max of 5 times that price, up to a max of 50/1 .. no one is going to lay, 500x the 'true' price, and it just discourages new traders, and the guy who made the mistake.
I appreciate its a gambling exchange, and people shouldnt be molly-coddled, but, there have to be limits .. or at least should be.
Often, there are trap bets, on ill-liquid markets, and people populate the lay side, with 102 for 8 quid, when its 1.01 to back.
I really think, after 15yrs, the exchange should have matured enough, to have a 'charter' for what is accepted practice, and what can be 'palped' or at least penalised.
I am sure, nothing will change. But, if Apple, was mis-quoted at $0.30c, and someone ordered a few billion shares, the order would have been un-wound.
I do feel for people when i see this happen especially these large amounts like this was but just to play devils advocate and put a flip side of the coin across this was obvioustly most likely a mis programmed bot ultimatly a human error as the cause.
People make large sums of money from bots without never being at there computer alot of it from manual traders who are slogging it out in front of the screen for hours on end while they off enjoying life doing something else so when one goes wrong and misfires why should nt the manual trader take advantage and get back what they ve lost to them in the past and no doubt will again in the future.
I have total sympathy for anyone who loses in a big way, just not necessarily the way in which they did.
People make large sums of money from bots without never being at there computer alot of it from manual traders who are slogging it out in front of the screen for hours on end while they off enjoying life doing something else so when one goes wrong and misfires why should nt the manual trader take advantage and get back what they ve lost to them in the past and no doubt will again in the future.
I have total sympathy for anyone who loses in a big way, just not necessarily the way in which they did.
I, too, pity the person who lost out. I've always considered that it is morally wrong to take such a bet. I know that had I taken it, I'd have felt really bad afterwards given the result. Conversely, if I don't take it, someone else will. Where's the boundary between opportunity and abuse? Nice guys finish last, right? It's tricky when such decisions need to be made.
While policing bets sounds like a great idea in practice, I think if you're going to use the API you need to realise that you're getting into a fast car without seatbelts or airbags. It'd be such a burden to police the whole exchange, and I think we all know that those decisions would also go the wrong way, as well as the policies being abused or being used as some kind of "insurance".
While policing bets sounds like a great idea in practice, I think if you're going to use the API you need to realise that you're getting into a fast car without seatbelts or airbags. It'd be such a burden to police the whole exchange, and I think we all know that those decisions would also go the wrong way, as well as the policies being abused or being used as some kind of "insurance".
I appreciate its tricky, but, am not sure, just becos the 'bad guy' got burnt, its relevent.
They would no doubt argue, they are adding liquidity etc, thus generating an attractive market.
I often see, ill-liquid mkts, with, some v large gaps, in between bid/offer prices.
In these situations, nothing can be done (especially as its in-running), but, pre-race, if the industry average was 14/1, then, there should be a limit, to what u can offer - even if its a big limit.
I do think, industry Sp will come .. and help, both on-course bookmakers, and exchanges. Right now, the on-course horse-racing industry is hand-cuffed .. in many ways - but, maybe thats for another thread.
They would no doubt argue, they are adding liquidity etc, thus generating an attractive market.
I often see, ill-liquid mkts, with, some v large gaps, in between bid/offer prices.
In these situations, nothing can be done (especially as its in-running), but, pre-race, if the industry average was 14/1, then, there should be a limit, to what u can offer - even if its a big limit.
I do think, industry Sp will come .. and help, both on-course bookmakers, and exchanges. Right now, the on-course horse-racing industry is hand-cuffed .. in many ways - but, maybe thats for another thread.
-
marksmeets302
- Posts: 527
- Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 4:37 pm
I second that!I'd rather congratulate the backer......that was a magnificent trap Sir, congratulations
stock exchanges have been plagued by stacking new rules on top of each other to make them safer. Maybe they prevented some harm, but they caused a lot as well. I remember having an order in the market to buy an S&P future at a very low price. Because someone fat fingered, the order got triggered. Market restored, and I made a nice profit. Yippie. Turned out the fat finger was caused by a guy at a bank that put a book on his keyboard. Bank called the exchange and all trades were reversed. This meant I was now short the S&P and the market was still rising. Effectively, I was being screwed because someone else made a mistake.
I hope rules like price ranges etc never become part of sport exchanges. Like Peter says warts and all.
You seem to be under the impression that bot owners don't have to do any work. I have written thousands of lines of code and spent hours/days/weeks/months/years working on strategies. Yes these programs are making money whilst the owner is doing something else but if you can't beat them join them...hilly2908 wrote: People make large sums of money from bots without never being at there computer alot of it from manual traders who are slogging it out in front of the screen for hours on end while they off enjoying life doing something else so when one goes wrong and misfires why should nt the manual trader take advantage and get back what they ve lost to them in the past and no doubt will again in the future.|
'Slogging it out in front of the screen for' a few hours a day sounds like a dream to me.
Years ago, I placed a bet of £50 at 50/1 with one of the major firms in the early days of internet betting. I was well aware that it should have been 5/1, but I was going to back the horse in any case. It won and my account was briefly credited with £2,500. This was in the days when winnings were still sent out by cheque - so there was no chance of a swift withdrawal! Eventually the bet was settled at 5/1, as allowed in the rules for 'obvious errors'. I then had to point out that the rules also stated that SP was to be used in such cases - 11/2 in this instance.
LinusP I am under no illusions and fully aware of how much time, effort and losses people put into trying to create profitable bots and that for everyone that succeeds they will of had several failures so anyone who has the ability to do it hats off to them.LinusP wrote:You seem to be under the impression that bot owners don't have to do any work. I have written thousands of lines of code and spent hours/days/weeks/months/years working on strategies. Yes these programs are making money whilst the owner is doing something else but if you can't beat them join them...
Regards
Andy
