Horses that ease (price) and win-Bots at work fact or fiction

Apr 14, 2014 -- 3:43AM, henryluca wrote:

Again thank you BJT regarding your thoughts.I will summarize main points 1. Am not referring to "layers".2. One layer...lets say an organization that has large money to back a horse to win.3. Rather than being content with say 2.5 he has a mate who understands bots etc4. The bot program at say a "cost" of (loss of $20 000.00) can push price to $3,50 (more in many cases but say $3.50)5. The difference between odds (1 point ).6 With $100 000.00 to bet (even if it is bookmaker laying off) that 1 point is worth an additional $100 000.00)7.Going  back to the $20 000.00 cost remember this is not lay bets totalling $20k..it is lay bets where the differential between lay and bet in rapid (very rapid) succession is .01 cent.8. I am truely dumb with computers however I have familiarized myself with betangel -automation (not easy at first i might say (sure you will have heard of it if not you must definitely google and watch u tube videos).  9 It is fantastic for bot beginners...( I have sent hours into days in quiet library focussed on getting understanding...but you must watch you tube )10. As a little side...."in play" bets are often in under pre-programed bot instructions.......this is why if you keep pressing "refresh" during say a trot race you will see the fav (or favoured second fav)varying by .02....11. Application of 10 above is that the program will always offer the horse .02 more cause it is expected to tire in straight and so looks good to a point.If you follow the above (agree or disagree) then I would be happy to further discuss. If you follow then I will not have lost your interest and I wont seem as loony tunes..thats all!

Yes but to get that increase in odds of something else, takes a very large investment against it by getting a bot to push the price to where you want to back it.

1. Am not referring to "layers".
You are referring to laying a horse to push the price out yes?  That is layers.

2. One layer...lets say an organization that has large money to back a horse to win.
Wouldn't he be a "backer"?

3. Rather than being content with say 2.5 he has a mate who understands bots etc
Why does he need a mate?  So he doesn't incur any of the costs himself?

4. The bot program at say a "cost" of (loss of $20 000.00) can push price to $3,50 (more in many cases but say $3.50)
Makes sense, risk 20,000 to move the market.  Have to be a very weak market to push it out too far though with that little money.

5. The difference between odds (1 point ).
As in a "tick"?  As in 3.45 - 3.50 is 1 point?

6 With $100 000.00 to bet (even if it is bookmaker laying off) that 1 point is worth an additional $100 000.00)
To be worth an additional 100,000 for a 100,000 dollar bet, the difference in odds needs to be 1.00.  Does it not?  So is a point 1 odd increment, or 1.00?
You seriously think you are going to move the market from 2.50 out to 3.50 with a 8-15k dollar lay bet?

7.Going  back to the $20 000.00 cost remember this is not lay bets totalling $20k..it is lay bets where the differential between lay and bet in rapid (very rapid) succession is .01 cent.
Say what?  .01 cent?  As in 1/100th of a cent?  Or .01 dollars?  2.50 goes up in 2 cent increments does it not? And then 5 cents once you hit 3.00?

8. I am truely dumb with computers however I have familiarized myself with betangel -automation (not easy at first i might say (sure you will have heard of it if not you must definitely google and watch u tube videos).
Gruss is just as good a program for bots.  It is the one I use.  Benangel from my recollection, whilst being decent is certainly not the most efficient program out there.



Now think about the logistics of what you are saying.  You are saying that a firm has 100,000 dollars to be on a horse, and they would like odds of 3.50 even though it is sitting at 2.50.

He tells his mate to use a liability of 20,000 to move that price out to 3.50 for him.  At 2.50, 13,333 is 20k liability, and 8,000 at 3.50. 
For him to risk 20,000 would equate to a bet size of between 8 and 13 thousand dollars.

Right?

You don't need to understand bots, to know that if it is possible to move the market from 2.50 to 3.50 with around 10,000 dollars, that it is unlikely that once it gets there it will accept a 100,000 dollar bet at 3.50  If you can move it with 10% of that to get there, then I would imagine adding 10 times the amount to the other side is going to drop it down 10 times as quick.

What he needs, is for the price that is being pushed out to be backed up by others following his move, to accomodate his bet size, to not only get out of his lay "price push", but to accomodate a bet 1,000% the size going the other way.

It makes zero sense.


This has nothing to do with "understanding bots".  A bot is imply an automating betting program.  I can program a bot to simply bet if the price hits 3.50.  That doesn't manipulate the market in any way.
What you actually need to understand, is manipulating a market.

As far as I can tell, most bots designed to manipulate the market, are cashing in on people following them.  eg they will lay off a horse at 2.50, due to the weight of money, it will sometimes force other people ahead of them, and maybe more, to the point where they can trade back anything they have already laid at slightly better odds.  These people certainly aren't moving the market a full dollar just to put a bet on at increased odds equating to 1,000% of their lay amount.

So what you are really suggesting is that a 10,000 dollar lay, will inspire hundreds of thousands of risked money pushing the price out nearly 100%, and once it gets there, a further 250,000 liability waiting to jump on.

Mathematically speaking, it does not add up.  If it was that easy to manipulate a market, then everybody would be rich.

Apr 15, 2014 -- 4:36AM, henryluca wrote:

I might have to take this discussion to the next level: namely actual demonstration of some of  the different options and strategies to offset losses after the bet at lower odds to those laid....to force odds out (ease) using "batches" where a sum of money is disbursed over time.etc etchttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_JhGo-nU3MI have attached this demo (one of many) to help understand the remarkable world of bots . Look forward to further discussion

In what way does that show market manipulation though?  Are you claiming because that bot was backing, that because the price came in from 3.65 to 3.10, that it was because of the bot?

Did you notice at the end that there was about 1,000 pounds being matched in the market at every refresh, ie about 4,000 pounds per second?
Yet all he needed to manipulate the market, was a few 10 pound bets?


We don't need to take it to the next level.  You need to slow down and listen to the responses.

THE REASON KINGMAN drifted in the market, is because ASTAIRE was backed for a stack, certainly not because somebody was laying it at 10 pounds a time... 


What you will find if you keep looking for videos, is that a huge proportion of bots and traders, are extremely successful.
What you won't find, is all the fcuk ups and trades gone wrong.  People trading with say 100 dollar stakes, and sticking 1,000 or so behind it trying to force the market in to have somebody take the lot and leave them in tears.

Apr 15, 2014 -- 6:40AM, spyvspy27 wrote:

100% market doesn't mean its 100% accurate and that BJT is a fact

No.  But nobody has said that.  What I said, was that long term on average, it indeed is.

That is why if you look at the last 1,000 horses priced between 1.95 and 2.05, you will find 500 of them won.  That is why you look at the last 1,000 averaging 5.00, and 200 of them won.

No market is 100% accurate, but combined they are very accurate.

But what you are disputing, is not what I am saying.

If what you are claiming, then you are suggesting me to be saying when a 100% market has the fav at 2.00 it is true odds, and when that horse drifts to 3.00 in a 100% market it is true odds.  It is completely ridiculous.

I understand you may have an issue with the term true odds, but you need to pick your battles when you understand what is being said... 

Apr 15, 2014 -- 7:37AM, spyvspy27 wrote:

Question for you BJT Do you have an explanation as to why some betfair users win more than 20% on turnover if the market is as accurate as you say?

BJT • March 3, 2014 7:23 AM GMT
Strike rate on its own is really irrelevant.  Everything is percentages in this game, and without comparing strike rate to odds, it means nothing.

The market is made up of many different variables.  On a whole, meaning a combination of all events, the market created on Betfair is 100% accurate when comparing the odds of something happening, to the occurance of it actually happening.

eg, a 2.00 favourite on BF, will win the race 50% of the time.

Now if you take form reading completely out of the equation, then it stands to reason that if you can back these 2.00 favourites, at a price greater than 2.00, then you must win long term.  Right?  That 2.00 horse doesn't simply trade at 2.00, it may trade between 1.80 and 2.20, or it may have traded from 4.00 into 1.80, or many different scenarios.  Point being, the average liability compared with stake, averages out to every dollar bet will average the return of 2.00.

So if you can back at 2.20, on average, every horse that starts at 2.00, then long term you will win plenty.  And really, I simply am referring to 20% above the average punter so these numbers could be 3.00 and 3.60 and such. 

Right?


In saying that though, the Betfair exchange as a whole, that comes up with this 100% market, is full of individual markets and individual selections that average out this efficiency.  Just because on the whole 2.00 favourites will average winning 1 every 2 races, doesn't mean that every single 2.00 selection has that chance of winning.  Some may be closer to 1.20, while others may be closer to 50-1, etc etc etc.
This is the same as with any other selection method.  Just because you have the ability to rate a race brilliantly, doesn't mean that your results aren't averaged out over time, and full of wrongly rated selections, and others where the value you thought you got was nothing on what you really got.
It is all averages and percentages.