EXTERNAL LINK

The article has spurred me on to post the following.

It's encouraging to read about new ideas that will bring greyhound racing into the 21st century.
The preferential box draw (PBD) system has operated for a long time in the UK and to me it appears to be a very
successful strategy to reduce incidents and increase racing welfare.
It is good to now see that NZ, WA, Victoria, NSW and Qld are now attempting "trial runs" or have plans to.
It is disappointing that Vic and NSW are yet to implement prior commitments in this regard.

The random allocation of boxes as per the current system does not produce a random allocation of boxes
across a small field of dogs over the course of a dog's racing career. What is argued as a "fair" process
does indeed produce unfair outcomes for many dogs when multiple box draws see them located in poor positions
relative to their experience or racing behaviour. In many cases, and across a dog's racing career, such an
outcome could be argued as more "unfair" than "fair". From both a statistical, behavioural and integrity
perspective, I would argue that the current random allocation of boxes does not produce an efficient outcome
for racing greyhounds in terms of their welfare and their ongoing racing career prospects.

The PBD system provides an excellent way to address this issue, however it needs to be based on animal behaviour
and welfare evidence and not on administrative or arbitrary rules. We should be closely examining the UK and NZ
experience and implementing;

1. A system that allows trainers to identify the preferred starting and running method of their dog and to be able
to nominate that preference. This may be identified as a wide, middle or rails preference as per the UK model.
2. That the dog be allocated as close to their preference as possible based on the current field nominations
and the past box allocation for that dog in previous races using a standard computer algorithm applied to each race.
3. There should be no preferential treatment applied to a past performance win from a given box for any dog and
all dogs should be allocated boxes under the same PBD rules in terms of the wide, middle or rails nomination. Any
preferential treatment applied to any runner should raise the issue of racing integrity and "fairness".

Such a system I think provides multiple benefits. These are;
1. Trainers can identify the running style of their dogs and nominate accordingly using the PBD system.
2. Allows flexibility to change the nomination over the career life of racing as required.
3. Does not totally rely on a random allocation component as the single outcome.
4. Enhances racing welfare and safety by allocating dogs to their PBD or as close as possible based on racing behaviour.
5. Assists dogs to have a consistent racing experience across their career lifetime of racing.
6. Increases fairness in box allocation and therefore enhances racing integrity across the board.
7. Provides trainers additional responsibility in the training and nomination of their dogs.

Surely the PBD has to be the way forward in the 21st century where we have a much better understanding of greyhound
behaviour, racing dynamics and the computer systems available to simply develop the technology required.

Along with the abolishment of corner starts !

I remember when 6 dog races were introduced , the same theory youve put forward now was the concern then also .

18 months on we have just had the biggest yesr in turn over yet ?

Also remember other big time punters with concerns about mugs in pubs or finger scrollers on apps saying it wont hold up ?

Again untrue , theres finger scrollers 500/1 out numbering these punters

Time to look after the dogs isnt it Julian ? And the guys doing years work to have it squashed by ametuer draws !

Its not for every trainer to nom for box 1 or 8 , its for trouble dogs bud , if you think theres 5 box 1 dogs in a race , you dont know the sport and this theory couldnt be further from the truth !

Should have been implemented years ago ! And I dont understand the slow implementation of it now !

Start it everywhere , not just 1 track ?? Fair dinkum

The disadvantages are that bookmakers own a lot of the tracks and therefore employ the grader, the vet, etc. The trainers have a contract with the track and must supply dogs for various grades and distances, if they fail to do so their contract can be terminated and remember this is not a hobby for contact trainers and their staff, it is their livelihood. The race office of the track then basically tells the owners what dog is running each week. The open racing scene is completely different.

In mainland Europe where gambling is virtually nonexistent most countries have a must better system. It is simple if you have the fastest qualifier in a final you choose the box you want. The second fastest qualifier then chooses their box and so it goes on.

Julian was spot on. In Australia with the gambling and bookmakers I doubt the box system will ever change as if they did you would a 1/5 odds on pop in every race.

I agree with you 100% Mark all races that start on bends should be a thing of the past.

The fav more times then not has already probably jumped from all boxes and proven box nom isnt needed for him if he were at that price ?

So u understand , technically now you should have more runners left in the race after the first turn !
Not the fav jumping away , the rest of the field skittling each other , and the fav kicking away for an assisted bash up behind him !
More dogs to fix , even career ending ! Rehoming !
R we seriously saying no , lets put punter prices which is a complete ASSUMPTION! No evidence ! None the country your using in play now has fields 5/1 whole field !
Why !
Coz its a level jumping field , and all dogs get their chances

Seriously how you come up with 2 dogs having preference will squash every race to a $1.20 .like its something new , we already have that under nsw grading . sorry , dont add up at all

I have evidence every night from the UK ! Never seen such and even tote field !
Whats hilarious Tony is we have 100/1 shots , isnt it strange we have graders to place dogs in the most equal race , yet here we are , punching out 100/1 shots !

Debacle

Cmon mate time to look after the product , stop with the assumptions like everyone did with 6 doggers , ended up being total waffle ! Remember this one , oh theres too much room now , its safer more dogs coz it keeps em in line ! Lol
Show me one race where they all hold their lines together singing Kum ba yah my lord around the first turn , what about this quote , all the serious old timers have left and itll be left to mugs in pubs which wont carry it ! Lol
Biggest turnover yet ? You know .. since all the big timers have left ?

Everytime something new gets possibly brought in , out come the nay sayers , remember Grafton track biult .. all the wise old trainers pointing out dogs will pull up with that winning post on an angle like that ! Lol
Not a drama ! Ever !

Point is , your better to try and fail then to have not tried and always wondered !

People will bet on 2 dogs if it was all thats available, and the thumb scrollers are in numbers , and seriously ! Their gamblers ! Does anyone actually think their gunna pick up their bags and switch off lol
Their gamblers , what else are they going to bet on , horses ? Good luck with that , worst things to throw a dart at ! And they know it !

Treat the product right , or there wont be one left ! No one learnt that yet ?

I am bringing this up to show that in my opinion the box system will never be changed in Australia due to gambling interests.

I am certainly in favour of change and would welcome it. I just don't see it ever happening.

How many years have trainers been asking for starts on a bend to become a thing of the past? it still has not happened.

Re the Origin box draw, I don't know the reason why, but apparently the only options available to the trainers were to stipulate either "rails" or "wide", no "middle" option was open to them.

Now I don't know how many trainers (if any), of the "wide" runners would have opted for "middle" had it been available, but surely those making the decisions could/should have made this an option as well.

Tony,

Like yourself I would love to see the "Preferential box draw" implemented, but I think you're pretty much on the mark with your "gambling interests" reasoning as too why we probably won't see it introduced, likewise why bend starts will remain.

EXTERNAL LINK

I for one will be very intrigued to see how the PBD works in practice given the extra 2 runners. Reading the article it would appear that the "Middle" option is to be called "Straight", however, if a trainer stipulates his/her greyhound as a "Straight" runner there is no guarantee that they will actually get box 4 or 5 (noms dependent), further, if they do stipulate "Straight" then it would appear (from what is written), that greyhound will probably never draw box 1 nor probably box 2 or even box 3 (again nominations dependent).

Perhaps for certain PBD races we might see reduced fields with perhaps boxes 3 and 6 vacant? I will watch with interest.

As for the Double arm lure, anything that may give the dogs a better chance of sighting the lure and or possibly promote chase has to be worth trying, (I still don't comprehend why the FOL is not used or even utilised more often).

However, as far as punting goes. The 2 dog from last week is racing today from 5. So as a punter, I'm thinking 6,7&8 have no chance of winning and the favorite in 2 has been backed from $4.40 into $2.80 because punters know what the 5 will do. Also the 3 is currently paying $3.30 a place and I'm thinking it will get a nice run behind the 2 and a bit of carnage behind it so I might throw it in as well.

Now if the 5 gets a preferential box draw out of 8, the 2 will still be around $4.40 and the preferential 8 dog will be into $2.80 because the punter knows that is where it will run well from.

My point? Preferential box draw or not, the market will level out and turnover will remain the same.
So forget the market.
Is a preferential boxdraw better for a dogs career? Of course! I don't want my dog getting crunched every week.
But is there any trainer that will not nominate for 1 or 8?

Like I said, ya win some ya lose some.
But having six box 5s and four box 6s from 18 starts, I'm thinking it's already preferential and nobody told me.....

AND - if I have a lightning beginner that goes hard left, can I prefer box 8, knowing she will cut across the field and skip away?

Now, I know it's totally random and I'm certainly not suggesting foul play. But if this sort of random was applied to, let's say, Powerball, I could be pretty confident that I'd be winning sooner or later. Or if this sort of random was applied to picking box trifecta's, I could go 4,5,6 in every race and I'd be in front by thousands due to consistency. Consistency being opposed to randomness.
I also know that GRV will do an audit which will cost hundreds of thousands, and that the conclusion will be that everything is working fine.

Preferential boxdraw?
Well my preference is to do every boxdraw live on Facebook and YouTube and to have 8 balls in a tattslotto type cylinder, which drop into the slot to match a dogs name. Wouldn't take any longer than it does currently and more importantly, it takes the computer generated 'randomness' out of the equation. And if I get 15 bad lucks out of 23, well I couldn't possibly deny the integrity of the draw because artificial intelligence is not involved.
Imagine if Powerball was done by computer generation instead of a 'true' random system. That is why Powerball is popular and Keno is not. Because one is done with integrity and the other is computer generated and designed to never lose.

I'm pretty happy go lucky most of the time but when you get continually beaten over the head with a big yellow stick that has a black number 5 on it, you tend to get a bit sick of it. Particularly when you have a maiden and a grade 7 that are trialling well but get checked early in every race.

Tony is 100% incorrect , its in play now ! End of story

The preferred boxes shouldnt be at the trainers disposal , its a simple job for stewards to Marshall , so any trainer asking for this and that to be a smart arse is down right dumb

Its for the safety of the chasers , not tactical fuk out theories??? There would be lucky to be 2 trouble dogs in a single race , hence 8 trainers nominating for preference is as retarded as the current electronic kennel and race draws .

Cannot believe this industry tries in one hand , then completely fuks it in the other

Not even a let down anymore , so predictable

Seriously

You are the same person on here whinging about grading...Remember your "predictable" graded certainty at Richmond that actually got rolled....LMAO

Mate racing is about the great uncertainty and that is how it should remain!

Who said it was a certainty ? I said it was clearly a dog that was outgrading all the others

It came second , due to it not being in its pet distance ! Then the following week againsts the same grading and another inside box , it won ? If your going to hold onto to something for so long , dont be shy to tell the full story .. you only had to wait another week for the point to be proven correct !

When the grading is an atrocity and 90% of its participants echoing the same point of view its not whinging , its a majority vote of 90 to 10 in favour of the same opinion .

What grading has to do with this current topic has got me ?

Racing is about equality and looking after both sides of participants, not rolling the dice on their lives and calling it uncertainty racing ?

Wake up .
[Edited Admin]