as you can see betting on greyhound racing is not on the decline.

do any of the exchanges sponsor a single greyhound race in oz
as far as i know ,they do not in the uk .

keep up the good work that you do Bruce,

on the subject of the shortage of hounds ,it would be good to know the number of hounds and percentage that do not make it to the track.

all i keep hearing is , too many are to slow ,fight ,or do not chase , can you shed a bit of light on this topic

We are getting off topic here, although betting turnover is a contributor to numbers bred and racing.

Pounds old chap? We got rid of those fifty years ago. But good to see your locals are making a game of it there. Astonishing really as, for example, the figure you quote for Northam R5 would far exceed the club's wildest dreams for all betting - not just Betfair.
Northam is a low standard country track with much smaller patronage than the state's two main tracks. Many of the others you list are in the same bracket.

I have no idea of Betfair volume here as it is too much trouble to dig deep into their system (unless you are a regular user). In part, that may be due to the relatively modest amount bet on most grey races in total - and that is split up amongst two totes and half a dozen significant "corporate bookies" (who are not bookies at all but financial manipulators who will cancel your account or halve your bet in a flash).

Betfair also refuses to advise annual turnover so any gross Oz figures would need an asterisk to understand them.

Betfair has also been suspect from a corporate viewpoint, with its ultimate UK owner allegedly considering a shutdown (albeit it was half Oz owned) Obviously, poor turnover would have influenced that.

The grey betting proportions vary and there are multi-state subtotals to look into - each state recording differently. However, the corporates have moved up from nothing to about one third of the total.

Corporates do a lot of sponsorship (with your money) due to their very low costs. Betfair very little.

Typically, a bit over 3,000 litters are registered annually and 12,000 dogs named. To 2016 there were 14,000 dogs racing in any one year but that and the other numbers have been in a state of flux since the Feb 2015 downturn in breeding (now recovering somewhat).

While there would be many dogs that fail to meet racing standards the proportion of those that do race and that are guilty of fighting/chasing convictions is fairly small. It is barely possible to get a figure as it needs you to clamber through each state's reports and I really can't be bothered. It is possible that whatever you hear are exaggerated comments.

Remember the vast majority of betting ingredients are a function of what happens at the gallops. Grey turnover is puny by comparison.

Bruce ,

I have just gone to the great trouble of looking at Betfair for you, over the past 30 minutes.

Wentworth Park R3 $15,564 matched - market of 104%
Cranbourne R4 $13,164 " " " " " 103%
Darwin R7 $10,168 " " " " " 108%
Rockhampton R4 $9,200 " " " " " 104%
Ballarat R4 $25,237 " " " " " 105%

There is a commission to be paid on the winnings by the successful punters.

I assume these are the worldwide figures, shown in AUD.

Many thanks for the info. I take it you are a member/subscriber - I am not. That sort of info is not readily available (but I may have been looking in the wrong place) but match by match info on footie codes is??? Still, it raises more questions than answers.

Using the WPK race as an example ...

1. The Betfair matched figure was higher than the Win tote on TAB/NSW $6813, or TAB/Vic $12117, suggesting the Betfair money came from overseas in the main.
2. The upside down nature of the above NSW and Vic figures is really odd.
3. The race was for a mob of scrubbers (nothing personal guys) and was won in 43.64 (slow track) or 31 lengths outside the record.
4. Investors could have been made up of either brilliant systematic mathematicians or mug gamblers. It is impossible to see how serious punters would take an interest.
5. Corporate money is unknown, which is normal. We'll tell you what's good for you.
6. Betfair (in extended conversations with me) does publish event by event turnover but refuses to provide monthly or annual data. That means it is impossible to determine Australian betting turnover accurately. Trends will be hidden.
7. Having said all that, it would seem that punters would be better off patronising Betfair (small commission) than the corporates (ripoff prices/conditions) or the TAB (pools too small).
8. I would also give Betfair some brownie points as it tries to educate investors about their system and how to assess the runners. In contrast, TABCORP just tells you how to fill out a ticket while the corporates would not give you the time of day.
9. I once wrote in the former QGRA Journal that "Betfair is here to stay so everyone should get used to it". So the Chairman sacked me. How times change!
10. Betfair Australia exists today only because Packer bought half of it and convinced the Tasmanian Premier to give it a license. Every other racing and government jurisdiction in the country was opposed, often quoting grossly misleading info from the UK, or, in the case of the then-AJC at Randwick, getting a tame management consultant to find that the legalisation of Betfair and the corporates would result in the death of racing as we know it. Ho hum.

The two weekly "Provincial" meetings in Melbourne should never have been introduced in the first place (15+ years ago - Stephens). All they did was to drag noms from the better country tracks, thereby lowering their average field quality. And maidens could have been run in Timbuktu.

This point arose simply because Melbourne always had two clubs and therefore two tracks, both circle tracks. Then they demanded an extra meeting each so as to improve their economics. OK, but it came at a cost which was never assessed.

Financially, Melbourne and Victoria would be better off if it had only one city track which conducted both meetings. (This was also true in Sydney, although the loss of a one-turn track was harmful in itself, albeit it was inevitable).

For practical and financial reasons, the better regional clubs are in a better position to promote to the local community and get more patronage for the numerous multi-million dollar investments in facilities, most of which are used only a couple of times a year. They are very expensive trainers' lounges, while Ballarat could stage a footie match in theirs.

As for holding open nominations - I always wonder what sort of dogs suddenly become available. Why were they not there in the first place? Secondly, no doubt many were considered not up to the 500m so to go to town is very much a second-best option, whereas the provincials would offer offer more suitable distance options.

The basic principle should be that - in line with populations - every capital city warrants one or sometimes two weekly meetings and no more. All further meetings should go to provincial centres where the industry can get better bang for its buck. Always assuming it puts in the effort, of course.

All that is confused by the current shortage of starters, but that's a different subject. The underlying principle remains and is reinforced by the fact that on occasions (Cup meetings) the provincials do very well. What we are talking about is a modest step down - ie what puts meat and potatoes on the table throughout the year.

What we don't need are $250k-$500k events as such. $100k would do just as well. More important for prosperity is what happens for the other 50 weeks.

If greyhound racing were a supermarket or a bank or a post office, it would shut down Meadows and convert it to a skating rink, a fun park, a football ground or whatever. (Nothing personal, folks, it's just business).

if as you say 3000 litters a year are born and 12000 dogs are named, the maths do not stack up,
as most people know the average number of pups born to each litter has been 5.6 ever since records began.
i find it hard to believe that 4 per litter is correct.
i think i am right in saying that in the USA most dogs are named between 4-12 months old ,by doing this a better record can be kept.
i used to name all of mine very early, did not wait till they were ready to race as seems to be the case in Australia.
in Ireland the top breeders name the dogs at twelve months old, if not before.
if the naming fee was reduced would it help to keep a better record of the number of hounds that do not make it to the track.
maybe a new rule should be brought in.
1. no dogs can be broken in before they have been named

if your facts are right Bruce, then the wastage is very high.
maybe you can double check your numbers Bruce. before i say any more on the subject.

Fools rush in but ....... we have to rely on Greyhounds Australasia statistics which are totals of individual numbers reported by each state. The clerical discipline and usage of this data is woeful but that's what we have.

Some states publish more current figures in various ways.

Officially, the most recent national data is for 2015.

Named 12,340
Litters 3,143

The live baiting saga of Feb 2015, followed by lots of government intervention, led to big falls in breeding and racing numbers which are only now recovering somewhat. So any more current figures will not be typical anyway.

However, the trend of a decade or so is for a slight decrease. The overlapping trend is that more out of each litter are now moving onto the racetrack to populate low-standard extra races for slow dogs.

Add all that up and you get an overall drop in average field quality and lots more empty boxes.

Nationally, there are now stringent rules about lifetime reporting of every dog, including strenuous efforts to avoid euthanasia and much promotion of the Greyhounds As Pets program. So historical data is rubbish, future data should be good.

The generally accepted average figure for pups/litter is 6.5. I can't advise on the timing of the naming process but obviously data for Naming and Services/Litters would not be synchronised, so your logic of 4 per litter is false. Also remember that the breeding and the naming could take place in different states, perhaps depending on the domicile of the dam. Others might know more than me.

For more tidbits on breeding check Roger Clark's Victorian greyhoundweekly.com.au.

When all this gets sorted out and data matures we will have a much better answer for your query on dogs making it to the track. Meantime, everything is guesswork. I have heard it said that only 27% of dogs make it to a city (ie major) track, but that is not verifiable.

NB: In Victoria alone, Litters decreased from 926 in 2015 to 634 in 2016. Current trends show much stronger figures.

NB2: Victoria also has had probably the strongest program of breeding incentives or subsidies in the country, as well as an extensive program of races limited to "Vicbred" dogs. None of that has had the slightest effect on breeding patterns. They are kidding themselves.

NB3: The above suggests that short term cash is far less influential on breeding than are overall or national factors such as quality, industry image or economics. Happily, Fernando Bale at $8,800 a time is fully booked out (and its progeny are killing them on the track). It is now closing in on Brett Lee proportions.

To complete my earlier remarks, I checked out a few weeks of breeding reports from greyhoundweekly.com.au run by Roger Clark.

These may tend to be representative of better sires etc but that should not invalidate the overall figures.

Over 84 litters the average number of pups was 7.5. They varied from 1 to 12.

EXTERNAL LINK

and for a small fee people who bought pups be allowed prior to racing to change the name if they want ,

While this is a good thing for the older dogs welfare and longevity of life for the not so well performed dogs is is very discriminating against young 5th grade dogs who with only 1 or 2 wins are still racing against dogs with up to 20 wins.

They keep telling us about welfare ,well what about the welfare of these young inexperienced dogs being thrown to the wolves with very little chance of progressing through their grades.

I am flabbergasted by the figures shown in that commentary on the McHugh report (your External Link). I have written on many other aspects of their crook numbers but I missed this particular one.

This goes way beyond an odd error. It is gross incompetence at the very least, backed by using selective quotes from unsubstantiated sources. It verges on criminal behaviour and should have been used by the Alliance to thump Baird & co.

One lesson is clear - never use lawyers to conduct reviews of a commercial industry. The Queensland effort was just as facile and all three states relied on a faulty reading of the sloppy memo from GA to come up with the overbreeding myth.

It was also a barrister's report which led to the combination of harness and grey stewards into the short-lived GHRRA - which cost a bomb while it lasted.

PS: I checked the litter figures I quoted and they are correct. Maybe a small sample like that can be misleading? Or maybe top sires produce top numbers? Dunno.

Yeah, that one the Commission simply made up.

Speaking from my professional side, I would not be surprised if there has been a real change in the average numbers of pups born per litter. The reason for that is the age of the mother has a very strong influence on the number of progeny born in pretty much any mammal that has multiple births. When the restrictions came in on breeding, it may have changed the ages of brood bitches to a younger cohort, increasing the number of pups/litter. Would have thought the sample size was large enough.

I fail to understand why we don't have 3 Sets of Animal Welfare Standards in this State. Metro/Provincial/Country. They race their Country dogs about every 2-3 weeks for $270. And required to keep their dogs up to "Worlds Best Practices" and Standards!

Your last question has been knocked around here many times:"also , how come so many can only run up to 400 mts".

I will jump in the deep end and offer two reasons: Brett Lee and Head Honcho.

As against that, the brilliant racer and sire, Fernando Bale, could not run past 520m to save his life yet seems to be able to produce the odd good stayer. See mum?? Dunno.

When was FB tested???... Some of his Brothers n sisters did and he ran 29 flat at Sandown... Pretty sure he'd get 600...

Exactly, he was never tested. He was never trained for it, there was never a need to for him.

A few of his siblings won city races over 600m and 700m

He is getting city class middle distance and staying dogs, and not just out of the Tears Siam litter, either.

You better check Fernandos run home times. They were strong so to say he wouldnt get past 500 is not right at all