【 BOT 】 C.A.T. Cryptsy Automatic Trader 1 Copy@0.8 (Old Topic Beta1-Beta3V8)

[Sampey]

Umm...question Sampey...whats going wrong here ?

See last line, last column Tot Cum Gain....its gone down despite the Total Gain being positive (+ 0.00368593) ??

2014-01-12 19:38:34   ASC/LTC   Sell   0.00007078   571.93493102   0.00012263   Buy   0.00007009   577.56527322   0.00008096   0.00020359   0.00019492   0.00481842   0.17261493
2014-01-12 19:48:41   NET/LTC   Buy   0.00065921   269.39655172   0.00035518   Sell   0.00067492   269.39655172   0.00054546   0.00090064   0.00333157   0.03108383   0.17963244
2014-01-12 19:48:41   NET/LTC   Buy   0.00065921   298.04980074   0.00039295   Sell   0.00067492   298.04980074   0.00060348   0.00099643   0.00368593   0.02775225   0.17630086

thanks!

I Think the line above

2014-01-12 19:48:41   NET/LTC   Buy   0.00065921   269.39655172   0.00035518   Sell   0.00067492   269.39655172   0.00054546   0.00090064   0.00333157   0.03108383   0.17963244

Was after (in chronological order) this line

2014-01-12 19:48:41   NET/LTC   Buy   0.00065921   298.04980074   0.00039295   Sell   0.00067492   298.04980074   0.00060348   0.00099643   0.00368593   0.02775225   0.17630086

Have you sort this table?
Problem is the timeStamp, Absolutedly equal,

[andycee]

Umm...question Sampey...whats going wrong here ?

See last line, last column Tot Cum Gain....its gone down despite the Total Gain being positive (+ 0.00368593) ??

2014-01-12 19:38:34   ASC/LTC   Sell   0.00007078   571.93493102   0.00012263   Buy   0.00007009   577.56527322   0.00008096   0.00020359   0.00019492   0.00481842   0.17261493
2014-01-12 19:48:41   NET/LTC   Buy   0.00065921   269.39655172   0.00035518   Sell   0.00067492   269.39655172   0.00054546   0.00090064   0.00333157   0.03108383   0.17963244
2014-01-12 19:48:41   NET/LTC   Buy   0.00065921   298.04980074   0.00039295   Sell   0.00067492   298.04980074   0.00060348   0.00099643   0.00368593   0.02775225   0.17630086

thanks!

I Think the line above

2014-01-12 19:48:41   NET/LTC   Buy   0.00065921   269.39655172   0.00035518   Sell   0.00067492   269.39655172   0.00054546   0.00090064   0.00333157   0.03108383   0.17963244

Was after (in chronological order) this line

2014-01-12 19:48:41   NET/LTC   Buy   0.00065921   298.04980074   0.00039295   Sell   0.00067492   298.04980074   0.00060348   0.00099643   0.00368593   0.02775225   0.17630086

Have you sort this table?
Problem is the timeStamp, Absolutedly equal,

Ahhh...yes that would make sense. Table had been sorted before but was reverted to sort by Timestamp. No bug is always a good conclusion !

[saxman717]

I would absolutely pay for a quality, comprehensive strategy guide for CAT ---- there really is just the bare bones advice on here to get going.  I know what the functions are, but barely know where to begin strategy-wise.  Anyone willing to put one together?

[andycee]

Morning all,

Heres a suggestion...

Sometimes we get stuck in a market...we have high sell PONGs or low buy PONGs. We look at the chart for today, and (if its a nice level price  ), it doesn't look like any of our trades will be executed soon. C.A.T. has all its trading pool tied up in waiting trades, and so nothing happens.

At this point I would either

1) Sit it out and wait for price movement (could take some time and we miss out on possible margin gains)
2) Inject a new PING buy order (putting more cash into the market) to get some trades happening (but does increase our exposure to market)
3) Decide to cancel all orders. Buys return to BTC (or LTC, XPM), sells return to the coin balance. Stop execution, then restart market with an initial PING sell on the full coin balance.

Whenever we do step 3, we lose some money. How much is determined by what each of the stuck orders was bought or sold at and what we will get for them at the current price. It would be great if there was a button to calculate this amount - "Loss on Market Exit", and another button to then execute these steps - 'Cancel Orders & Restart Market'. At least we can make a quick and informed decision if it is worth it. Another plus of this is that the loss can also be added to the Global Gains sheet. At the moment when we do these steps, the loss not listed anywhere and can lead to us thinking we are doing better than we actually are !

Would people want a choice to do this only on PING buy trades and not PING sells ? (The logic being if you did a PING sell, you sold high and then expect to buy low - and markets always have a good chance of falling!)

In fact, it might be nice to have a global calculation of losses on all open markets and then sell all at current best price (which people have asked for) as part of the program exit.

Your thoughts people !?

[rcg]

when we have altcoin balance on cryptsy, maybe is there chance looking for rising markets.

[rcg]

2) Inject a new PING buy order (putting more cash into the market) to get some trades happening (but does increase our exposure to market)

This looks like scaling, I'ts very risky.  We can use it when we have opened a small order only

In fact, it might be nice to have a global calculation of losses on all open markets and then sell all at current best price (which people have asked for) as part of the program exit.

Your thoughts people !?

yes it would be nice

[andycee]

Sampey,

I've noticed one or two orders placed by CAT at crazy prices.

e.g.

(Cryptsy)
 Your Open Orders
Order Date   Price (LTC)   Type   DVC (Orig)   DVC (Remain)   Total (LTC)   Action
2014-01-12 23:03:21   0.02909999   Sell   18403.45950640   18403.45950640   535.54048760   Cancel
2014-01-12 23:03:21   0.02909999   Sell   6473.83491820   6473.83491820   188.38853138   Cancel

(CAT)
28878587   Sell   18403.45950640   18403.45950640   0.02909999   0.00002112
28878588   Sell   6473.83491820   6473.83491820   0.02909999   0.00002104

DVC price is currently around 0.00002000 !!!!

Nothing of note in the Errors.

I looked to find a log file holding the General Log history to see why/where these orders were placed but can't find it ?

Is this saved anywhere ?

thanks

[Sampey]

Sampey,

I've noticed one or two orders placed by CAT at crazy prices.

e.g.

(Cryptsy)
 Your Open Orders
Order Date   Price (LTC)   Type   DVC (Orig)   DVC (Remain)   Total (LTC)   Action
2014-01-12 23:03:21   0.02909999   Sell   18403.45950640   18403.45950640   535.54048760   Cancel
2014-01-12 23:03:21   0.02909999   Sell   6473.83491820   6473.83491820   188.38853138   Cancel

(CAT)
28878587   Sell   18403.45950640   18403.45950640   0.02909999   0.00002112
28878588   Sell   6473.83491820   6473.83491820   0.02909999   0.00002104

DVC price is currently around 0.00002000 !!!!

Nothing of note in the Errors.

I looked to find a log file holding the General Log history to see why/where these orders were placed but can't find it ?

Is this saved anywhere ?

thanks

I think these orders will be recreated, but i think the problem could be in this call :

Method: marketorders

Inputs:

marketid   Market ID for which you are querying


Outputs: 2 Arrays. First array is sellorders listing current open sell orders ordered price ascending. Second array is buyorders listing current open buy orders ordered price descending.

sellprice   If a sell order, price which order is selling at
buyprice   If a buy order, price the order is buying at
quantity   Quantity on order
total   Total value of order (price * quantity)

If the API Return is not correct (not in ascending order) the value i use (the first on top of the queue) could be wrong.
I think i will wrote a routine to sort the array in ascending order.

[andycee]

Great stuff, thanks....otherwise still very stable !! 

[andycee]

Sampey, me again   ,

I've think I've just seen this behaviour :

I've got multiple buy PINGS running on the same market at different prices.

e.g. JKC/BTC (BUY)
                    JKC                        LTC
0.00171004     510.87392408           0.87361485
0.00171003     3.99042287           0.22682366

Now both of these are (I think) 100% my orders i.e. nobody else in there

Problem is, at lookup, the 171003 order sees the 171004 order and thinks this is someone else, so it ups its order to 171005.
Then the 171004 order sees the new order at 171005 and thinks this is someone else, so ups its order to 171006.

You can see where this is going....with no actual competing bidders, CAT raises the price of my orders on every refresh, thus competing against myself !!!

The bid goes up and and up until I have pushed the price up and the buy sell % margin is too low.

What CAT should be doing is realising that there is no need to beat the current top bid....as its 100% myself !


Does CAT take account of this, or did I get it wrong  and maybe there were other users orders in there ?

thanks!

[Sampey]

Sampey, me again   ,

I've think I've just seen this behaviour :

I've got multiple buy PINGS running on the same market at different prices.

e.g. JKC/BTC (BUY)
                    JKC                        LTC
0.00171004     510.87392408           0.87361485
0.00171003     3.99042287           0.22682366

Now both of these are (I think) 100% my orders i.e. nobody else in there

Problem is, at lookup, the 171003 order sees the 171004 order and thinks this is someone else, so it ups its order to 171005.
Then the 171004 order sees the new order at 171005 and thinks this is someone else, so ups its order to 171006.

You can see where this is going....with no actual competing bidders, CAT raises the price of my orders on every refresh, thus competing against myself !!!

The bid goes up and and up until I have pushed the price up and the buy sell % margin is too low.

What CAT should be doing is realising that there is no need to beat the current top bid....as its 100% myself !


Does CAT take account of this, or did I get it wrong  and maybe there were other users orders in there ?

thanks!

I must check the code but i remember that C.A.T. remove your orders from calculation

[andycee]

If the API Return is not correct (not in ascending order) the value i use (the first on top of the queue) could be wrong.
I think i will wrote a routine to sort the array in ascending order.

Yup, this problem is definitely happening...just had another one...

Your Open Orders
Order Date   Price (LTC)   Type   JKC (Orig)   JKC (Remain)   Total (LTC)   Action
2014-01-13 09:04:05   0.00000285   Buy   105546.33216783   105546.33216783   0.30080705   Cancel
2014-01-13 09:19:49   0.00163525   Buy   40.54609998   1.02073214   0.00166915   Cancel
2014-01-13 09:19:49   0.00163525   Buy   27.27565815   27.27565815   0.04460252   Cancel
2014-01-13 09:23:09   0.00182091   Sell   35.49536220   35.49536220   0.06463386   Cancel

[Sampey]

In the next version i have add a label under the Quantity with the "minimum quantity required for order creation".

[pastet89]

Version for 1 BTC still available for sell?
Does it run under Linux?

[cozk]

800 bucks for a shit coin trader ?

LOL

Ok, nvm, i thought it was for CAT coin XD

[Sampey]

800 bucks for a shit coin trader ?

LOL

Ok, nvm, i thought it was for CAT coin XD

I see only 1 shit here, and it's not my trader. 

[Sampey]

Version for 1 BTC still available for sell?
Does it run under Linux?

Yes, or 0.8 if you use my referral code on Cryptsy

[cgw007]

Version for 1 BTC still available for sell?
Does it run under Linux?

I am reselling my copy for 0.6 BTC if you are interested

[pastet89]

Hi, sorry but I am busy and still can not read the whole thread so I will be happy to get answered if generally it requires some trading skills or it is just set on auto mode?
What strategy does it use,weight of money?

@Cgw007 Why are you selling it? Sampey OK with that?

[Sampey]

Hi, sorry but I am busy and still can not read the whole thread so I will be happy to get answered if generally it requires some trading skills or it is just set on auto mode?
What strategy does it use,weight of money?

@Cgw007 Why are you selling it? Sampey OK with that?

Hi, for a Simple use you don't need more skill that the ones needed to use Cryptsy.
Weight of money is free, more money more gains.

I'm ok with cgw007 but he must sell also the Cryptsy account because is related with his cryptsy public key