Cheers Andy.
It's good to "bounce off" someone.
It looks like it would be easier setting it up with the two exchanges (and therefore the two accounts) running through my VPS ....and running it like that.
Bugger. Just more "back office" stuff to get through.
I'm much more "GSI" (Get Someone In) than "DIY".
Or rather, buy an "off the shelf...everything is done" solution. But I can appreciate BetAngel's position. If "not alot of people are using it", then there's no point in putting on as a VPS offering.
Cheers again Andy.
!
Betdaq volume monitoring thread
As Andy has mentioned nothing from stopping you installing betdaq on a VPS, would love to know what optimisation the betangel betfair vps software actually involves...
Tagadab and AWS are cheap alternatives.The server edition of Bet Angel Professional has been optimised to take advantage of a more reliable and stable connection and will work only with our servers. The application assumes a fast connection and has been modified to take advantage of that.
Thanks LinusP
Just as an aside, I had previously used BetAngel for BetFair many moons ago.
There isn't an issue "installing" BetAngel for BetFair (non VPS) onto a VPS and as it "comes free" with BetAngel for BetDaq, "installing" that also.
Both (the same) platforms via a VPS to Exchanges.
Seems a couple of companies run services for both exchanges.
It's just a case of an "ease of use" front end interface, that links to excel (for "charting" purposes).
Just as an aside, I had previously used BetAngel for BetFair many moons ago.
There isn't an issue "installing" BetAngel for BetFair (non VPS) onto a VPS and as it "comes free" with BetAngel for BetDaq, "installing" that also.
Both (the same) platforms via a VPS to Exchanges.
Seems a couple of companies run services for both exchanges.
It's just a case of an "ease of use" front end interface, that links to excel (for "charting" purposes).
-
spreadbetting
- Posts: 3140
- Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:06 pm
I'd never worry too much about direct comparisons between Betfair and Betdaq volume it really comes down to whether it's going to be a viable trading platform for you. I remember the early days of Betfair and the likes of Flutter, play121 etc where volumes were a lot less and all were perfectly tradeable to make a living from. I'd imagine with betfair being the better known alot of the volume is only traded money back and forth anyway, it'd be interesting to see the actual volumes of money bet to open positions between the two.
A "meaningless" brief comparison of "displayed" Total Market figures.
A "North of the border" low grade Nursery pulled in just above £300K on BD.
And a Midlands Seller pulled in £136K on the same exchange
Pretty respectable for Monday racing I think.
Comparing BD/BF
£150K v £517K Lo grade Hcap
£194K v £428K Same as above
Again noting, "displayed" figures, not calculated "actual" figures from either Exchange, so "irrelevant" as far as a comparison goes.
But "impressed" with the figures for BD on a Monday. Wasn't quite like that several years ago.
A "North of the border" low grade Nursery pulled in just above £300K on BD.
And a Midlands Seller pulled in £136K on the same exchange
Pretty respectable for Monday racing I think.
Comparing BD/BF
£150K v £517K Lo grade Hcap
£194K v £428K Same as above
Again noting, "displayed" figures, not calculated "actual" figures from either Exchange, so "irrelevant" as far as a comparison goes.
But "impressed" with the figures for BD on a Monday. Wasn't quite like that several years ago.
-
andyfuller
- Posts: 4619
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:23 pm
They are meaningless figures tbh - 1000-1 horse has £100 on it on BD and it shows as £100,000.
You need to do the true comparison which is quite easily done - just copy all the matched amounts and prices on Betfair for each runner at the off - convert to BD style of reporting and you have a direct comparison.
You need to do the true comparison which is quite easily done - just copy all the matched amounts and prices on Betfair for each runner at the off - convert to BD style of reporting and you have a direct comparison.
Hi Andy,
Yep, completely meaningless...as such (as in "displayed" in a format where only a conversion can give a "comparison").
I know neither exchanged actually "traded" the amount they choose to publish.
However (with an obvious "leap forward") that could then get us into the dreaded and much misunderstood "liquidity" topic.
And that, to a large extent, is "irrelevant" in these types of markets.
Suffice to say, "amounts" were traded on both exchanges.
And those amounts (on either exchange) were "sufficient" to generate trade (or rather a volatility/fluctuation be they temporary or permanent) that would suggest exploiting a price difference on an (either) exchange, is viable.
On the issue of "mirroring" of each exchange/per "market".
That is impressive. I was mostly impressed with that. Suggesting the "volume reported", although essential, is rather a "nominal figure".
However, I must add, "nominal figures" are very useful, however they are arrived at.
The "take home" message is (I suppose) 1. that both Exchanges "trade" very well. They both attract monies.
2. The "information" coming from either, isn't "perfect".
3. From an "individuals" point of view (particularly dealing with these "markets" on these Exchanges), therein is the/an advantage.
Yep, completely meaningless...as such (as in "displayed" in a format where only a conversion can give a "comparison").
I know neither exchanged actually "traded" the amount they choose to publish.
However (with an obvious "leap forward") that could then get us into the dreaded and much misunderstood "liquidity" topic.
And that, to a large extent, is "irrelevant" in these types of markets.
Suffice to say, "amounts" were traded on both exchanges.
And those amounts (on either exchange) were "sufficient" to generate trade (or rather a volatility/fluctuation be they temporary or permanent) that would suggest exploiting a price difference on an (either) exchange, is viable.
On the issue of "mirroring" of each exchange/per "market".
That is impressive. I was mostly impressed with that. Suggesting the "volume reported", although essential, is rather a "nominal figure".
However, I must add, "nominal figures" are very useful, however they are arrived at.
The "take home" message is (I suppose) 1. that both Exchanges "trade" very well. They both attract monies.
2. The "information" coming from either, isn't "perfect".
3. From an "individuals" point of view (particularly dealing with these "markets" on these Exchanges), therein is the/an advantage.
A "quickie" following on from my above post....
...."What is actually considered a traded amount" ?
(As in, how would you measure it)
It's easy at 2.0.
£100 back, gives you a profit of £100 or a loss of £100
The matching Layer, sees the same Risk/Reward
So the "traded volume" could be said to be "£100". The amount each/opposite may win or lose. Or not !
A matched £100 @ 1.01 on BD would show "£101"
A matched £100 @ 1.01 on BF would show "£200"
Both are "correct".
...."What is actually considered a traded amount" ?
(As in, how would you measure it)
It's easy at 2.0.
£100 back, gives you a profit of £100 or a loss of £100
The matching Layer, sees the same Risk/Reward
So the "traded volume" could be said to be "£100". The amount each/opposite may win or lose. Or not !
A matched £100 @ 1.01 on BD would show "£101"
A matched £100 @ 1.01 on BF would show "£200"
Both are "correct".
As a "rough" calc for comparison between the two exchanges, would I be right in saying it is....
BF volume at a price,
Divide volume by 2,
Minus 1 from the price,
Multiply by "new" price,
Here I have recorded BF volume in a "X seconds" window.
729 @2.4
6978 @2.42
9255 @2.44
712 @2.48
The corresponding comparison for BD would therefore be
510.30 @2.4
4954.38 @2.42
666.36 @2.44
526.88 @2.48
The "like for like" comparison volume, for that period would be...
BF 17,674
BD 6,657.92
BF volume at a price,
Divide volume by 2,
Minus 1 from the price,
Multiply by "new" price,
Here I have recorded BF volume in a "X seconds" window.
729 @2.4
6978 @2.42
9255 @2.44
712 @2.48
The corresponding comparison for BD would therefore be
510.30 @2.4
4954.38 @2.42
666.36 @2.44
526.88 @2.48
The "like for like" comparison volume, for that period would be...
BF 17,674
BD 6,657.92