I've made (possibly) profit generating triggers - guess what they do and how!

Hi

I think I have some bits of it, but certainly not the whole picture.
Gap between back and lay price is less than 3
Opening back bets on all selections are r_ticks(back_price,3)
Amounts are calculated for dutching all selections, but I do not know how

If price rises and bu_backp is equal to lay_price, cancel then back at r_ticks(lay_price, 1). Adjust new back amount for dutch

If price falls 1 tick cancel then back 1 tick lower than last
adjust amount for dutch

Not sure what is happening at the end.

Would this trigger only be used where liquidity is high and there is money waiting at all the prices in the trading rage?

Are you going to merge or pool Russian and English comments?

Well done MarkV, you are definitely seeing what it is all about.

Gap between back and lay price is less than 3

I didn't have this one in my triggers, but it is well worth adding. What I do have instead is a maximum back book% value for the betting to start, which in theory is almost the same factor.

Opening back bets on all selections are r_ticks(back_price,3)

Well spotted.

Amounts are calculated for dutching all selections, but I do not know how

We'll get to this a bit later. They are calculated so as to form equal profit on all selections if all bets are matched.

If price rises and bu_backp is equal to lay_price, cancel then back at r_ticks(lay_price, 1). Adjust new back amount for dutch

Excellent, this bit is slightly different though:

bu_backp is equal to lay_price".

The rise must be more significant, otherwise the bet will get matched too fast.
Why do you think I'm not interested in it getting matched too fast?..

If price falls 1 tick cancel then back 1 tick lower than last
adjust amount for dutch

It has too be more drastic than that. I wouldn't recommend to do it if it's just 1 tick.

Not sure what is happening at the end.

I'll add a video for the triggers' actions at In-Play tomorrow.

Would this trigger only be used where liquidity is high and there is money waiting at all the prices in the trading rage?

Yes, absolutely. I wouldn't even try it in Greyhound or in fact any other markets than UK horse racing. And it is not only about liquidity: the prices in the market should not rise and fall predictably in the long run like they do in football markets if a score stays the same for any decent amount of time. What I want is almost random price fluctuations.

Are you going to merge or pool Russian and English comments?

Didn't think about this... How would Russian speakers understand comments in English and vice versa?

> Why do you think I'm not interested in it getting matched too fast?..
is it because you are "manufacturing" an underround and looking for the minimum?

> What I want is almost random price fluctuations.
I don't fully understand the principle yet, but could you apply a similar technique to offset trading / scalping?

> How would Russian speakers understand comments in English and vice versa?
I'm translating online as they come in as I am sure are others, but I thought perhaps as you are multilingual you might post key points. Don't want you to go to too much trouble though. Quite happy as is.

is it because you are "manufacturing" an underround and looking for the minimum?

Yes, you're getting to the bottom of it!

I don't fully understand the principle yet, but could you apply a similar technique to offset trading / scalping?

I'd say no as offset trading is performed on one selection only, well, at least if you do offset trading on more than one selection, the results are not correlated.

I'm translating online as they come in as I am sure are others, but I thought perhaps as you are multilingual you might post key points.

That sounds feasible. OK, hold on...

Cross posting translated replies from the Russian speaking thread:

It's obvious this is an arbitrage. It is unlikely though that you'll get it matched, and that's what I see in the video.

If a price grows (or falls), a bet is cancelled and another one is placed.

If you back at a price even higher than it was, the chances for matching it are diminished, aren't they?

Looks like the trigger backs on the horse whose price is growing significantly. I.e. the emphasis is on its growing even more.

I have doubts that you always have it your way. Too good to be true. Can you demonstrate other markets on a video?

I do love these clever trading strategies, I don't really have anything to add to Marks' analysis, other than I thought from first glance that back orders were being requested at lay_price3, rather than his suggestion, although I suppose it would give the same result in most cases.  My only other point is that I tend to agree with the last comment from Terminator, above.

My only other point is that I tend to agree with the last comment from Terminator, above.

Fair enough rubold, my reply to Terminator was that the bets don't always get matched, so I have a plan B for such cases.
I will try to introduce you to it in the next video for In-Play markets.

Ya strategy is very interessant but problem may be unmatched bets at beggining.

In most cases (horses) is totally prohibit let it goes to in play.

Im curious about Paln B

pcal72

I'm a late player here so I have plenty of posts to learn from.
1. Place bets when <10mins and Back Book% is <101%
2. Back bets = r_ticks(backp,3) and Amount = ($50 / backp)
3. If backp >= r_ticks(bu_backp,2) then cancel bet of drifters
4. Set new back bet for drifter as per 2.
5. If back_p <= r_ticks(bu_backp,-2) then cancel bet of steamers
6. Set new back bet for steamer as per 2.
7. At 3 mins before the off Back bets = r_ticks(backp,3) of remaining horses unmatched. These bets will remain in-play if unmatched.


Close?

Hi londolozi,

Very, very good!

1. Place bets when <10mins and Back Book% is <101%

I chose back book% <102% and start betting at 15 mins before the off, but it is indeed 10 mins on the video (thought you'd all drop off if it were any longer!).

2. Back bets = r_ticks(backp,3) and Amount = ($50 / backp)

Right you are.

3. If backp >= r_ticks(bu_backp,2) then cancel bet of drifters

Could you correct this one? If the current back price were equal or greater than the unmatched back price plus 2 ticks, then surely the unmatched bet would become matched in the first place?

4. Set new back bet for drifter as per 2.

Not quite. If I were increasing the price of the bet proportionally to the growth of the current price, then I would have a hard time matching them after all.

5. If back_p <= r_ticks(bu_backp,-2) then cancel bet of steamers

The initial bets are placed at back price + 3 ticks. Immediately after this r_ticks(bu_backp, -2) makes current back price plus 1 tick. Certainly you wouldn't want to cancel bets you just placed as those of steamers?

7. At 3 mins before the off Back bets = r_ticks(backp,3) of remaining horses unmatched. These bets will remain in-play if unmatched.

I set it to 5 mins, and the activity before the off relates to steamers only, and to those whose rank is less than runner_number/2. And so it is not exactly backing 3 ticks over the current price.

But overall, I'm very impressed londolozi.

Here's another one to think about: there is one more factor I am guided when choosing whether to do something with unmatched bets, apart from the price fluctuations and time to the off. This factor is directly related to the parameters of the bets I've already placed. Guess what it is. MarkV gave us a clue earlier on.

Today's statement, reduced the initial payout from £50 to £10 as didn't have much cash in that account.

Video number 2.

What happens to my bets In-Play.

Here is one of those "bad" markets where one of my bets stays unmatched till way into the course of the race. I sped the idle part up to save you from yawning.

It all ended well in the video, but - here's a disclaimer - sometimes the last bet to be matched leaves me with a certain loss, have to suck it up obviously. Fortunately so far the "good" markets compensate the "bad" ones (argh, clearly it won't last, will it?).

To summarize, here is what has been discovered.

1. I choose markets with 8 or less runners, and only those that will turn In-Play after the start. The betting begins at 15 mins before the off. The back book% of the market must be less than 102%.
2. The trigger make back bets at a price 3 ticks higher than the current back price. The amounts are calculated as [payout]/r_ticks(back_price, 3), where [payout] is a fixed amount.
3. As prices start moving up and down, the bets are cancelled and new ones are placed according to these rules:
   3.1. If the price of a drifter went up by 2 ticks and if it is still not matched, cancel its bet and place it 1 tick higher than the original price.
   3.2. If the price of a steamer went down by 2 ticks, cancel its bet and place it 1 tick lower than the original price, but don't do this if the steamer has a rank of more than runner_number/2, until close to the off.
4. The book % of the prices at which my bets are placed, both matched and unmatched, is calculated after each market refresh. Why it is needed, you will probably guess looking at the new video. Obviously, the triggers are aiming at keeping this book% below 100%.

What a great thread!

I presume it can be easily adjusted for laying purposes.

thanks for the help

Welcome LarpHager!

I presume it can be easily adjusted for laying purposes.

I'd be very careful with lay Dutching, as if there is a withdrawn runner, the book % of the matched bets will be ruined.

Cross-posting from the Russian thread:

I think the algorithm is roughly this.
Bets are placed with prices that add up to the cumulative probability of < 1, after one or two bets are matched, the probability is re-calculated and new bets are placed and so on. You can see in the video that you enter the market offering higher prices which gives you advantage enough to win profit.

I suggest calling this dynamic Dutching.

Theoretically if not all bets are matched before In-Play, then a trigger must attempt to minimize the losses.

I believe the greening up of the last bet was conditioned by Stop-Loss, otherwise I don't see why it had not been matched earlier when there was an opportunity, instead of sticking to the price of 90