Hi,

At the moment, we can only create "and" function
e.g. bet 0 unit on single N 1 and N 2 then if true bet 1 unit on single N 3 else go back to step 1. step 1 will only process if N 1 and N 2 happens at the same time (impossible).
but is it possible create a function such that it can use "or" function.
e.g. bet 0 unit on single N 1 or N 2 then if true bet 1 unit on single N 3, so if either number 1 or number 2 comes up then bet on number 3

Many thanks.

      Report Post      

Ad

admin
youroul.com
avatar: admin
0 217
Hello Thadern,

thank you for this suggestion!


Thadern:

e.g. bet 0 unit on single N 1 and N 2 then if true bet 1 unit on single N 3 else go back to step 1. step 1 will only process if N 1 and N 2 happens at the same time (impossible).



Betting 0 on N1 and N2 means to wait for N1 or N2 in that step.
The conditions for "on win" and "on loss" are related to all the chances of the step.

So if you do as written, its waited for N1 or N2, then "on win" (of 0 units),
jump to another step where N3 is bet with 1 unit.

If i didn't understand you fully, please try to explain again.

Have fun testing!
admin

      Report Post      

admin:
Hello Thadern,

thank you for this suggestion!


Thadern:

e.g. bet 0 unit on single N 1 and N 2 then if true bet 1 unit on single N 3 else go back to step 1. step 1 will only process if N 1 and N 2 happens at the same time (impossible).


Betting 0 on N1 and N2 means to wait for N1 or N2 in that step.
The conditions for "on win" and "on loss" are related to all the chances of the step.

So if you do as written, its waited for N1 or N2, then "on win" (of 0 units),
jump to another step where N3 is bet with 1 unit.

If i didn't understand you fully, please try to explain again.

Have fun testing!
admin



Thank you for clearing this up.
Thadern

      Report Post      

timy

avatar: timy
11 32

But its not possible to split up the reaction by the won chance?

e.g.

Bet Col 1 and Col 2:
on win of Col 1 do this
on win of Col 2 do that
on loss do anything

is there a way to separate *this* and *that*?

      Report Post      

admin
youroul.com
avatar: admin
0 217

timy:
is there a way to separate *this* and *that*?



Not yet...

But there is a way to differentiate a loss by Zero from a "normal" loss.

I am always interested in new functions, but i am not sure if this kind of split would be usefull...

Have funny tests,
your admin

      Report Post