Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Retrospective - API Release To Prevent Minimum Bet Abuse - 19th June

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sansa
    replied
    I believe it is the same for BACK and LAY.
    ACTUAL VALUE = ROUNDED VALUE =
    STAKE PRICE STAKE * (PRICE – 1) ROUND(STAKE * (PRICE – 1),2) ROUNDED / ACTUAL VALUE (ROUNDED / ACTUAL) – 1
    £0.01 2.24 0.0124 £0.01 0.8065 -0.1935 <20% Loss Accepted
    £0.01 2.26 0.0126 £0.01 0.7937 -0.2063 >20% Loss Rejected
    £0.01 1.79 0.0079 £0.01 1.2658 0.2658 >25% Gain Rejected
    £0.01 1.8 0.008 £0.01 1.2500 0.2500 25% Gain Accepted
    £0.01 1.81 0.0081 £0.01 1.2346 0.2346 <25% Gain Accepted

    Leave a comment:


  • winterwooksie
    replied
    Anybody got a spreadsheet that you plug values into ? Struggling with the lay side of things

    Leave a comment:


  • Gamblr
    replied
    Originally posted by BetfairDeveloperProgram View Post

    Working formula on prices/sizes is most easily described from the Back point of view where rounding that causes <= 20% loss or <= 25% gain will be allowed.
    I'm a little bit confused about this. From the back point of view, how could rounding cause <=20% loss?
    Last edited by Gamblr; 04-07-2020, 03:59 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BetfairDeveloperProgram
    replied
    Hi All,

    This morning we made a release to fix the price/size inconsistencies that were reported previously.

    Working formula on prices/sizes is most easily described from the Back point of view where rounding that causes <= 20% loss or <= 25% gain will be allowed.

    Kind Regards

    Neil

    Leave a comment:


  • levelsoft
    replied
    Originally posted by Sansa View Post
    I would say it is impossible to verify anybody's results at present. Neil has confirmed that there are currently inconsistencies, hence a fix is due next week. If you base your results on what is currently happening then that may all change after the fix. Without a detailed specification of what should be correct we cannot be 100% all is going to work as we expect after the fix. It is clear from this thread that people still interpret what information we have in different ways. My results differ from yours in many cases, I am not saying yours won't be accepted, but a lower price may be acceptable e.g. 0.04 @ 1.20. Yours may be the minimum for Backing, mine may be for Laying. Neil's example of an inconsistency was between a Back and a Lay bet, same size and price, one accepted but the other rejected. I interpreted this as they should be treated the same.
    Thanks Sansa.

    I agree about the fact that this is guesswork but I have to try and work with something until the info is cleared up.

    These are for lays. Perhaps I miss labelled the price. I'm not bothered about it being the absolute lowest (to within 2/3 ticks anyway), as long as they'll all work and not be rejected is the key. I'm just replacing the 1.01 with whatever works and I don't much care what it is. Bets that don't qualify like wanting to lay 2p as 1.27 is just a new rule that doesn't affect my apps in any real way, in fact due to the fact its all non attended I make sure the current odds aren't within 10 ticks of the order price to avoid possible full £2 bet match.
    Last edited by levelsoft; 27-06-2020, 10:26 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sansa
    replied
    I would say it is impossible to verify anybody's results at present. Neil has confirmed that there are currently inconsistencies, hence a fix is due next week. If you base your results on what is currently happening then that may all change after the fix. Without a detailed specification of what should be correct we cannot be 100% all is going to work as we expect after the fix. It is clear from this thread that people still interpret what information we have in different ways. My results differ from yours in many cases, I am not saying yours won't be accepted, but a lower price may be acceptable e.g. 0.04 @ 1.20. Yours may be the minimum for Backing, mine may be for Laying. Neil's example of an inconsistency was between a Back and a Lay bet, same size and price, one accepted but the other rejected. I interpreted this as they should be treated the same.

    Leave a comment:


  • levelsoft
    replied
    Apologies for the terrible format, but anyone willing to verify these results for a under min lay bet

    {
    "stake required in pence":
    odds to use in initiating under min bet size (doesn't have to be absolute smallest as long as it works)
    }



    {
    "1":1.8,
    "2":1.41,
    "3":1.27,
    "4":1.21,
    "5":1.17,
    "6":1.14,
    "7":1.12,
    "8":1.1,
    "9":1.09,
    "10":1.08,
    "11":1.08,
    "12":1.07,
    "13":1.07,
    "14":1.06,
    "15":1.06,
    "16":1.05,
    "17":1.05,
    "18":1.05,
    "19":1.05,
    "20":1.04,
    "21":1.04,
    "22":1.04,
    "23":1.04,
    "24":1.04,
    "25":1.04,
    "26":1.04,
    "27":1.03,
    "28":1.03,
    "29":1.03,
    "30":1.03,
    "31":1.03,
    "32":1.03,
    "33":1.03,
    "34":1.03,
    "35":1.03,
    "36":1.03,
    "37":1.03,
    "38":1.03,
    "39":1.03,
    "40":1.02,
    "41":1.02,
    "42":1.02,
    "43":1.02,
    "44":1.02,
    "45":1.02,
    "46":1.02,
    "47":1.02,
    "48":1.02,
    "49":1.02,
    "50":1.02,
    "51":1.02,
    "52":1.02,
    "53":1.02,
    "54":1.02,
    "55":1.02,
    "56":1.02,
    "57":1.02,
    "58":1.02,
    "59":1.02,
    "60":1.02,
    "61":1.02,
    "62":1.02,
    "63":1.03,
    "64":1.03,
    "65":1.03,
    "66":1.03,
    "67":1.03,
    "68":1.03,
    "69":1.03,
    "70":1.03,
    "71":1.03,
    "72":1.03,
    "73":1.03,
    "74":1.03,
    "75":1.04,
    "76":1.04,
    "77":1.04,
    "78":1.04,
    "79":1.04,
    "80":1.01,
    "81":1.01,
    "82":1.01,
    "83":1.01,
    "84":1.01,
    "85":1.01,
    "86":1.01,
    "87":1.01,
    "88":1.01,
    "89":1.01,
    "90":1.01,
    "91":1.01,
    "92":1.01,
    "93":1.01,
    "94":1.01,
    "95":1.01,
    "96":1.01,
    "97":1.01,
    "98":1.01,
    "99":1.01,
    "100":1.01,
    "101":1.01,
    "102":1.01,
    "103":1.01,
    "104":1.01,
    "105":1.01,
    "106":1.01,
    "107":1.01,
    "108":1.01,
    "109":1.01,
    "110":1.01,
    "111":1.01,
    "112":1.01,
    "113":1.01,
    "114":1.01,
    "115":1.01,
    "116":1.01,
    "117":1.01,
    "118":1.01,
    "119":1.01,
    "120":1.01,
    "121":1.01,
    "122":1.01,
    "123":1.01,
    "124":1.01,
    "125":1.04,
    "126":1.04,
    "127":1.03,
    "128":1.03,
    "129":1.03,
    "130":1.03,
    "131":1.03,
    "132":1.03,
    "133":1.03,
    "134":1.03,
    "135":1.03,
    "136":1.03,
    "137":1.03,
    "138":1.03,
    "139":1.03,
    "140":1.02,
    "141":1.02,
    "142":1.02,
    "143":1.02,
    "144":1.02,
    "145":1.02,
    "146":1.02,
    "147":1.02,
    "148":1.02,
    "149":1.02,
    "150":1.02,
    "151":1.02,
    "152":1.02,
    "153":1.02,
    "154":1.02,
    "155":1.02,
    "156":1.02,
    "157":1.02,
    "158":1.02,
    "159":1.02,
    "160":1.02,
    "161":1.02,
    "162":1.02,
    "163":1.03,
    "164":1.03,
    "165":1.03,
    "166":1.03,
    "167":1.03,
    "168":1.03,
    "169":1.03,
    "170":1.03,
    "171":1.03,
    "172":1.03,
    "173":1.03,
    "174":1.03,
    "175":1.04,
    "176":1.04,
    "177":1.04,
    "178":1.04,
    "179":1.04,
    "180":1.01,
    "181":1.01,
    "182":1.01,
    "183":1.01,
    "184":1.01,
    "185":1.01,
    "186":1.01,
    "187":1.01,
    "188":1.01,
    "189":1.01,
    "190":1.01,
    "191":1.01,
    "192":1.01,
    "193":1.01,
    "194":1.01,
    "195":1.01,
    "196":1.01,
    "197":1.01,
    "198":1.01,
    "199":1.01,
    "200":1.01

    }
    Last edited by levelsoft; 27-06-2020, 10:16 AM. Reason: update to the odds requirement

    Leave a comment:


  • WTPooh
    replied
    Originally posted by ozknows View Post
    Hi Neil,

    Both your formulae don't work in all cases, if you take some price/size combinations that are exactly on -20% or +25% some are allowed and some are blocked.

    Price: 1.01 Size:0.80 Diff: 25% Allowed satisfies >=25%
    Price: 1.10 Size:0.25 Diff: -20% Allowed satisfies <=-20%

    but

    Price: 1.01 Size:1.25 Diff: -20% Blocked satisfies < -20%
    Price: 1.05 Size:0.25 Diff: -20% Blocked satisfies < -20%

    there are other examples of this.

    Can you give us a working formula that works in all cases and/or a list of price/size combination from 1.01 to say 3.0 and whether each size is allowed or blocked (Sizes up to £1.60 should be okay) ? For example £0.01 is allowed at 1.80 but is blocked again between 2.26 and 2.58.

    We are trying to apply fixes but have inconsistent info which is often contradictory and has edge cases that doesn't work.

    Thanks.
    Your calculations of difference are incorrect. Here is simple C# function for lay bets:

    double GetDiff(double price, double size)
    {
    var liability = Math.Round(size * (1 - price), 2, MidpointRounding.AwayFromZero);
    var actualProfitRatio = size / liability;
    var fairProfitRatio = 1 / (1 - price);
    return Math.Round(actualProfitRatio / fairProfitRatio - 1, 4);
    }

    Currently allowed -0.20 <= diff < 0.25

    Leave a comment:


  • ozknows
    replied
    Hi Neil,

    Both your formulae don't work in all cases, if you take some price/size combinations that are exactly on -20% or +25% some are allowed and some are blocked.

    Price: 1.01 Size:0.80 Diff: 25% Allowed satisfies >=25%
    Price: 1.10 Size:0.25 Diff: -20% Allowed satisfies <=-20%

    but

    Price: 1.01 Size:1.25 Diff: -20% Blocked satisfies < -20%
    Price: 1.05 Size:0.25 Diff: -20% Blocked satisfies < -20%

    there are other examples of this.

    Can you give us a working formula that works in all cases and/or a list of price/size combination from 1.01 to say 3.0 and whether each size is allowed or blocked (Sizes up to £1.60 should be okay) ? For example £0.01 is allowed at 1.80 but is blocked again between 2.26 and 2.58.

    We are trying to apply fixes but have inconsistent info which is often contradictory and has edge cases that doesn't work.

    Thanks.
    Last edited by ozknows; 26-06-2020, 12:30 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sansa
    replied
    Here is my take on what should be happening.

    0.01 @ 1.80 = 0.0080 Rounded = 0.01. 25.00% More. Accepted (Profit/Loss increased by 25%)
    0.01 @ 1.81 = 0.0081 Rounded = 0.01. 23.46% More. Accepted (P/L increased by less than 25%)
    0.01 @ 1.79 = 0.0079 Rounded = 0.01. 27.85% More. Rejected (P/L increased by greater than 25%)

    0.01 @ 2.24 = 0.0124 Rounded = 0.01. 19.35% Less. Accepted (P/L reduced by less than 20%)
    0.01 @ 2.26 = 0.0126 Rounded = 0.01. 20.63% Less. Rejected (P/L reduced by greater than 20%)

    If the percentage difference between the Actual profit/loss and the Mathematical profit/loss is an increase of greater than 25%, or a decrease of greater than 20% then the bet will be rejected.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hefi
    replied
    Can someone give me some example about when we need to check the 20% and when we need to check the 25% of the rounding? I'm a little bit confused :S

    Leave a comment:


  • TOM2908
    replied
    can i just ask why laying 10p at 100 is classed as below minimum, the liability is 9.90, would be the same as backing 9.90 at 1.1 and that is allowed

    Leave a comment:


  • BetfairDeveloperProgram
    replied
    Hi Sansa,

    Should equal or greater than 25% be rejected (as implied by BDP in the first post), or is it greater than 25%?
    Yes, its actually <20% and >25% rather than <=20% and >=25%

    KInd Regards

    Neil

    Leave a comment:


  • Sansa
    replied
    Thanks Neil.

    In preparation for the fix can you tell us what should be accepted or rejected.
    e.g. Should equal or greater than 25% be rejected (as implied by BDP in the first post), or is it greater than 25%?

    Leave a comment:


  • BetfairDeveloperProgram
    replied
    Hi All

    Regarding the below (and other similar scenarios)

    Lots of inconsistency.

    try placing a lay of £0.02 at 1.4 - works

    then try placing a back of £0.02 @ 1.4 - rejected
    Apologies, we are aware of these issues and ETA for the fix is early next week. We'll confirm once this is in place.

    Kind Regards

    Neil


    Leave a comment:

Working...
X