TheTub wrote:We are all wrong in some way. Me for not reading the question correctly and you guys for misunderstanding of the word 'liability'
Take Brents example (sorry Brent but you are wrong here) -
... if you have your liability set at 1000, and you are backing at 200-1, your liability is 5 dollars to lay, 1000 dollars to back. WTF? Do you really want to risk 200 times more backing the horse first than laying it?
'Liability' means risk. So your liability is not 5 dollars. It is 1000 dollars but the stake used is 5 dollars. So your risk (liability) is the same as the back side, 1000 dollars. You are not risking 200 times more. You are risking the same.
The liability staking can be set in the rules tab to apply to lay and back stakes or just the lay side only. Which is what I thought was being asked.
If you want the same stake on both sides then this is not liability staking. You are after other auto staking option - tick size. Here the stakes will stay the same on both the back and lay side of the book but automatically adjust themselves as the prices change.
Maybe I worded it wrong, but that doesn't make what I said wrong. Your liability stake at 200-1 would be 5 dollars. Giving you a liability of 1000.
The 1000 liability back at opposing odds, of 1000 @ 200-1, needs a countering 1000 dollar lay, at 200-1, or 200,000 liability.
Either way you word it, you are risking your odds * liability setting, extra on a back, than a lay. It is all proportional.
And no,
If you want the same stake on both sides then this is not liability staking. You are after other auto staking option - tick size. Here the stakes will stay the same on both the back and lay side of the book but automatically adjust themselves as the prices change.
THAT IS NOT WHAT IS WANTED.
Maybe I will slow things down for you, although not sure why, as it has been spelt out already, and you clearly aren't prepared to put the time in to read it.
But, anyway, here it is again.
Tick sizes is no good. That has nothing to do with liability. Here, you are staking the same at 3.05, as you are at 3.95. You are staking the same at 1.10 as you are at 1.99. That has nothing to do with liability.
Here, really slow for you. What is wanted. You set your liability. Here, we can call it liabilitySetting.
Formula should be.
Back.
liabilitySetting/(bestBackOdds-1).
Lay.
liabilitySetting/(bestLayOdds-1)
But it shouldn't even be set like that, that should be just the advisory prices. The actual bet that is put on, should be liabilitySetting/(requestedOdds-1).
This is the purest form of liability that you can have. The same opposing liability, whether you back or lay.
Here. I will even give you an example.
You have your liability setting (you will remember we called that liabilitySetting) set at 1000.
Odds of a horse trading at around 2.50.
You back the horse, succesfully, as it is on its way down.
You enter your back bet, at 2.50. The program recognises you wish the liability of the bet, 1000, to be represented by the bet size. It will place a bet for you as liabilitySetting(1000)/(oddsRequested-1)(1.5)
or 1000/1.5, or, for the people not even reading this, 666.67 dollar bet placed, at 2.5.
Without changing anything, you follow the horse as it comes into 2.2.
You now wish to lay the horse. With a simple click of the button, you lay at 2.2. The system recognises, that you wish your lay bet to be representative of a 1000 liability. It places the bet, 1000/1.2, or 833.33 at 2.2.
Or, if you wished to back it again still coming in, it would place the same 833.33 bet at 2.20 on the back size. Because the bet, is an actual representative of the requested liability.
I can't see why this wouldn't be a much better system than what is in place right now.
Right now, I use the liability option. But I have to change the preset stakes EVERY race, because I am not prepared to bet for a much larger amount, than what I am prepared to lay for.
The only difference with it, would be instead of having a zero net on that runner, meaning a free bet for it to win, you would now have a free bet on it to lose, or if it won, you get your money back. I am sure it could even be tweaked further.
Not sure how other people think, but when I think liability of a bet, I always think of it in investment terms, and winning probabilities. The actual liability of your bet, must take into account its chance of returning you money, and how much you need to invest before you will return to 100%. At odds of 200-1, to have a 1000 liability, your stake must be 5 dollars, because it will take you 200 bets of 5 dollars (1000 liability) to return your 100% stake.
Whereas, if you bet 1000 @ 200-1, you are betting to a liability of 200,000, because it will take you 200,000 dollars worth of bets to return your initial stake.
Seems a bit silly somebody risking so much on a bet when they only wanted a 1000 liability.
![[img=http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/7137/balib.th.png]](http://img10.imageshack.us/i/balib.png/){kind=link}