Bet Angel - Automation : Closing the Back/Lay Gap?

Advanced automation available in Guardian - Chat with others and share files here.
Post Reply
firlandsfarm
Posts: 330
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 8:20 am

Thu Feb 28, 2019 7:52 am

Hi, I've a silly little problem I can't seem to find the solution to :( You know how there can sometimes be a gap between the back and lay prices ... how can that be set as a Condition within an Automation rule when looking for a qualifier that meets all other conditions? I am going to be out today and want to set up a simple Rule to stop placing any bet if the gap is wider than 2 ticks e.g. if the Back price is say 2.00 then only place a bet if the Lay price is 2.02 or 2.04. If the gap is more than 2 ticks then wait X seconds and look again. It is an All Selections criteria.

I have tried using the Relative Odds condition by saying "The selection's [Back price] is [greater than] the [Lay price] of [ANY selection] [minus] [3] [ticks]" but am finding "ANY selection" literally means any selection and not "The selection" so if we have a runner Lay priced at say 2 then any (other) runner will qualify if it's back price is more than 1.97! The comparison behaves Market specific and not Runner specific).

I was wondering how I might achieve a Runner specific condition without needing a rule for every runner?

User avatar
Dallas
Posts: 11208
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 10:57 pm
Contact:

Thu Feb 28, 2019 2:28 pm

If you have a rule applied to the fav then use a 'Relative odds condition' to test the gap of 'ANY' selection it will look for a gap in any other runner
So you'll need a rule for each selection, to test for a gap on the selection the rule is triggering on with a 'Relative odds condition'.

firlandsfarm
Posts: 330
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 8:20 am

Fri Mar 01, 2019 7:44 am

Hi Dallas and thanks for that but it has nothing to do with favouritism nor is any one runner affected by any other runner it is nothing more than protecting myself against a wide gap between Back and Lay prices when leaving the Automation unattended (which after all is basically why it's there :) ). The reason is I sometimes get caught out by placing a back bet say 2 ticks above reverse price but if there is a 3 tick gap you are effectively placing the bet 5 ticks above current back price and may never be matched unless the price swings.

I'm looking for something that is exclusively individual runner orientated e.g. "before placing a reverse bet on Runner1 check to make sure the Back/Lay price gap of Runner1 is not more than X ticks" and "before placing a bet on Runner2 check to make sure the Back/Lay price gap of Runner2 is not more than X ticks" and so on … "before placing a bet on RunnerN check to make sure the Back/Lay price gap of RunnerN is not more than X ticks"

User avatar
mcgoo
Posts: 462
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 12:30 pm

Fri Mar 01, 2019 9:44 am

Back Price is greater than Lay Price Minus X ticks- should sort it for you

firlandsfarm
Posts: 330
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 8:20 am

Fri Mar 01, 2019 11:46 am

But I don't think it does mcgoo :( As I said in my OP I have tried using the Relative Odds condition by saying …

"The selection's [Back price] is [greater than] the [Lay price] of [ANY selection] [minus] [3] [ticks]"

You have to have "Any Selection", none of the other choices are appropriate when looking at all runners but in this instance Any Selection means any selection and not The Selection. So if any runner has odds that meet the criteria then the criteria is met for all runners so it's not doing what I want. :(

Unless there is another Condition that I'm missing other than the Relative Odds condition.

User avatar
mcgoo
Posts: 462
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 12:30 pm

Sat Mar 02, 2019 2:38 am

firlandsfarm wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 11:46 am
But I don't think it does mcgoo :( As I said in my OP I have tried using the Relative Odds condition by saying …

"The selection's [Back price] is [greater than] the [Lay price] of [ANY selection] [minus] [3] [ticks]"

You have to have "Any Selection", none of the other choices are appropriate when looking at all runners but in this instance Any Selection means any selection and not The Selection. So if any runner has odds that meet the criteria then the criteria is met for all runners so it's not doing what I want. :(

Unless there is another Condition that I'm missing other than the Relative Odds condition.
Sorry :? :shock: , I skimmed your post. Yes , to the best of my knowledge, you need to specify a runner as Dallas says-either by favouritism, row or by nomination

firlandsfarm
Posts: 330
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 8:20 am

Sat Mar 02, 2019 3:45 am

No Problem mcgoo, thanks for contributing

Post Reply

Return to “Bet Angel - Automation”

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests