Since its your future, some intelligent responses would be even better.

So far, the progress is ......

1. Termination of Marathon racing.
2. Trials for returning after whelping.
3. Trials for dog out of racing for 6 months.
4. New Rule banning consecutive day racing.
5. Limit on number of litters per dam.
6. Vic stewards regularly querying over-racing frequency - possible new Rule?
7. Mandatory public trial for intending Group race starters - possible new Rule?
8. Possible new Rule for stayers backing up in 7 days?

Just leave him be to himself...he'll drive himself insane.(and his imaginary private inquirers)

Last night at Shepparton a dog with 5 wins from 35 starts last win in Aug 2019 went around in the 650m race.

Amazingly, it started a $1.30 favourite. But it just plodded around and finished a poor 4th to moderate time. Never looked like it. Who on earth put that money on?

Its previous start was only 5 days earlier over the fairly demanding Warragul 680m trip, where it finished a poor 5th at 20/1. Too much, too soon?

Stewards asked no questions.

ie. The "demanding" rating of each track and distance.

You stated "the fairly demanding Warragul 680m trip"

So can you nominate other"fairly demanding trips".

Do you have other "demanding" ratings for each and every track.

such as...."not very demanding"..."highly demanding."

This is critical information that your legion of followers expect you to share with them.

I expressed an opinion - without any special support.

Warragul is longer than the typical provincial staying trip. The track has more/longer straights and rather less of the distance on the turns. It is more cigar-shaped. It would more equate to the old Bendigo 700m.

Another factor is that most other provincial staying trips involve a (lousy but easier) bend start whereas Warragul requires a strong run out of the boxes and then two more longish straights to deal with after that.

Otherwise, the degree of difficulty varies with distance as a rule. The only exception to that would be at Cranbourne 699m where times are slower (relatively) than at any other Vic track, including in the city. I have always viewed Cranbourne as the toughest 500 in the business but I suspect that is as much due to poor corners as anything else. (These days, you are flat out finding a 500 anyway).

If you would like a different but related comparison, match the identical 515m trips at Angle Park and Sandown. Dogs handling APK fairly well tend to run out of puff on the straights at SPK.

That aside, I am told I don't know anything about dogs anyway so I doubt I have "followers". I do have critics but they usually lack good information.

Are you making notes? There is no charge.

Let's not digress any further - albeit track layouts are important to all dogs.

What my Shepparton/Warragul example illustrated was that stamina, or distance capability, is critical no matter how far they are racing. Plus the real reason for my post was that the dog in question had only a 5 day break after its previous long run. And the difference between 650m, 680m and 700m-plus is only one of degree, and always dependent on the dog in question.

In the Warragul case, the winner in moderate time was an honest plodder (Seve Rose @ 20/1) which ran down two highly favoured runners with useful city experience (including in the Bold Trease). Certainly, Rajasthan found the going over 715m too much for him but exactly the same thing happened over Warragul 680m - ie leading but fading. However you interpret the runs, it is clear that the 680m is a strong test - ie "fairly demanding".

Either way, 5-day or 7-day backups pose problems for stayers. That's the real poser. I hope all the "followers" get the message.

Incidentally, I must offer a disclaimer as I am informed by supposed experts that "You (meaning me) would not know what a good track is because you are not a trainer". Buyer beware!

Re your comment about Cranbourne 520m trips,

"I have always viewed Cranbourne as the toughest 500 in the business but I suspect that is as much due to poor corners as anything else."

I have often been told the front straight is uphill,.. obviously the dogs traverse it twice in a 520m race....which is the reason it is viewed as a tough 520m..not poor corners as you suggest.

IMO there seems to be less severe interference on the first turn in comparison to the Sandown 515m and the Meadows 525m starts.

All of the Victorian clubs show a track layout on their websites, but no gradients.

Regardless of whether Cranbourne does have an uphill straight or not. It does raise the issue of whether the welfare of the dogs would be better served with an uphill run into the first turn, to lessen the risk of severe interference.

Bruce, you have told us many times about your input to clubs about their track layouts, have uphill straights ever been part of your input?

The difficulty is that precise surveys of tracks are rarely available. Generally, when they are, you still do not get crossfall or lateral gradient data, nor any elevations at various points on the track. Additionally, there is the question of whether those features are continued when post-rain maintenance is done. (The GRV curator's guide does not specify where those gradients start and finish). Consequently the viewer is limited to reading what dogs do and working backwards from that.

In turn, that reading sometimes (but not always) is reflected in winning box distributions.

As for the artist's sketches on club websites - pfff - not worth the paper they are using up.

But, yes, I have often passed comments to clubs directly but they are seldom acknowledged or, when they are, factual situations are denied. One comment from a very famous club manager tells the story. He said "they'll be alright if they nick out in front". In one particular state I have been advised that they will get shot by HQ if they divulge any info.

As reflected above, I can have no idea about the uphill/downhill situation (which is normally hard to see by eye). However, I have seen comments that Hobart's last 100m is uphill. The old Gold Coast 457m also started from a spot well above track level.

I have heard a real old stager suggest that the level should rise as they approach the first turn - ie slowing them down - but have never heard of it occurring anywhere. I understand the theory but am not convinced as they are all going flat chat at that stage and are not short of energy.

My point about CRN520m is based on (a) constant views of inside dogs running off at the first turn and (b) boxes 7 and 8 ability to swoop around the outside to the lead (see also better winning box numbers). Neither of those happen at Meadows while Sandown appears to be a relatively high interference turn but it is evenly distributed.

Problem (a) is also present at Ipswich and Richmond and to some extent at Newcastle - all due to designers favouring a level start from nearby 400m boxes.

Secondly, on the Cranbourne 520m home turn I have often seen dogs unable to make the turn neatly and almost run into the 520m boxes. That obviously affects 311m and 699m races, too.

The principle here might be to start with a velodrome and then progressively flatten it out and only then position the boxes. I suspect many tracks are designed in the reverse order (Newcastle most certainly).

What seems to confuse many is that judgements are made on the basis of a hard railer going round on the paint - therefore the circuit must be OK. Instead, they should be looking at what centre or wide runners do, particularly those behind that railing leader. Failure to do that may not alter the winning dog's chances but it will radically change the placings, thereby disrupting half the overall investments in the race.

The Summer Distance Plate over 720m will include the four best from each of Saturdays two heats. Two of those are leaders and two are finishers all running around the 42.2 mark in the heats.

Previously, all fifteen were coming off starts four to ten days earlier, half of which were interstate and two of which were over unsuitable shorter trips. One true stayer Boom Down will not be there. Although not over-raced, it looked a bit weary to my mind and never got near the action in its heat. Weblec Eagle will be a starter although it failed to handle Wenty but it does have some promising earlier form in Melbourne.

The final should see Blue Moon Rising and True Detective battling for the lead, which will probably do neither any good. That leaves Blazing Cartier and Just Terms to pick them up as they enter the home straight. But can they?

Frankly, after just a 7-day spell, its hard to be confident about any of them. All have enjoyed pretty heavy travel and racing programs in recent times. I would rather just watch but, if forced to bet, I would probably go for Just Terms which is the most consistent of the lot. But it will need an inside box.

Whatever, it is hard to see any of them improving on heat times. But a two week gap might have told a different story.

You have made your message loud and clear.

"Either way, 5-day or 7-day backups pose problems for stayers. That's the real poser. I hope all the "followers" get the message."

At the risk of being labelled Pro-Teague, I must say your message, based on stats, deserves due consideration by anyone starting out as a trainer.....It is all part of the mix in the learning curve.

Incorrect. Again.

Bruce can you play Chess? Now theirs a game if you dont understand principles of Chess and focus on unorthodox strategies, you lose badly. Chess as three separate major principles, opening, middle and end game. Chess mathematics is huge but greyhound training as far more variables.
Maybe the boys at IBM could advise on a mathematical equation. Deep Blue 2 beat Kasparov with an impossible equation. They did it.

Interesting thoughts.

1. On Training I could not possibly comment as it is outside my expertise. I can note only that there are many different approaches whether for stayers or others. Either way, the distant observer the punter can have no idea of how or what the trainer has done. We can go only on past history of (a) this dog or (b) all dogs.

2. I do note you indirectly support the concept of leaving more space between stayers runs. This would appear to be basic commonsense as no-one can be dead sure if the dog is fully back to strength after only 7 days.

3. My old partners final adjustment to the GreyBase form program (ie the algorithm) came from an inspiration he got when reading a book on quantum physics. Anyway, it was never intended to be a tip sheet but a logical collection of facts about dogs and the tracks the race on. Sure, it does produce a set of prices but they are no more than a reflection of all those facts. They can never be 100% complete and so require to user to add personal knowledge as and if appropriate. In contrast, Deep Blue could extend the list of possibilities almost endlessly but also select the route that looks most likely to be the best. Even then, it can adjust constantly as its opponent plots a different course. In that context, chess and the greyhound race are similarly structured. You must get the opening gambit right (1st sectional), then adjust for average enroute interference (mostly around the turn but reflected to a large extent in winning box bias), and finally assess the relative strength of the runners as they roar home (the end game).

So, effectively, we already have a mathematical equation for the race but the difference between the two is that the element of doubt is much higher in the greyhound race. As such, the likelihood of a draw is extremely low. There are always basic imponderables as you cant be sure if the dog had a bad hair day or not. Added to that (as I have frequently outlined) is that the nature of the track (eg bend starts, excessive interference, etc) automatically add to the degree of difficulty perhaps by extending the odds by another 10 to 30 percentage points. Once that is present you have IBM or Kasparov competing with a mug player no betting is possible or practical.

Essentially, we have already done the IBM thing but only so far as humanly possible. The dogs dont play chess. And they do not move pieces only in the proscribed way. Besides neither IBM or Kasparov had to start with a 20 to 40 points handicap anyway. It was even
money (?).

This is a first...... "Adjust for average enroute interference"
So let me get this straight, now your Greybase system adjusted for average enroute interference ?

Then how come you said this on page 1 of this topic ?

Bruce Teague wrote:

Ryan..... As for the question of track speed ... I did not assess that for the current examples because I have shut down my database. However, informal crosschecking suggests there was little or no difference between the heats and finals in these cases. End of that discussion. * * * * * You have now introduced yet another factor - that of correcting for various levels of interference met by each runner in their past or present lives. Apparently, you want to make adjustments along those lines. I am well aware that some people (including Sure Pick) do that routinely and good luck to them. I don't, and it has never been a feature of GreyBase programs for a few reasons. 1. It is subjective as to who did what and by how much - ie a guess....

Greybase form never did it on page 1, but does do it here on page 13 ?

You aren't making up things to suit your argument are you ?

Surely Ian you cant possibly have the same opinion now ?

Oh btw when you extend the odds you decrease (not increase) the percentage points, any punta worth their salt knows that.

I see you are having problems understanding a complex issue. There are only two points which are critical here.

First, your system of personally identifying and quantifying en route interference met by each dog - wherever it occurs - is unsound and unhelpful for various reasons - mainly that it is subjective and also because dogs which hit interference in one race tend to do it in others. So we do not use it.

Second, interference on the way to and around the first turn is primarily a function of the dog's box position. This can be assessed on average by calculating the effect of winning box numbers. A secondary effect is a function of the dog's running habits - rail, wide etc. Another is its beginning ability. The latter two modify the impact of the box - for better or worse.

The best time to add personal judgements is after you have got the facts and completed the maths, not before.

Ian and I were discussing breaks between runs - not interference.

Odds? Bookies (or totes) in theory start with a 100% book and move up from that figure to whatever level they choose or wherever punters force them to go. That might be 110%, 120%, or whatever. You have missed the point that crook tracks ADD to that number and so force gamblers to bet into books of, say, 140% - which of course means they are going to lose as they are accepting "unders" at an increasing rate.

Graham,

Precisely. This explains why the best dog does not always win the race - something I pointed out for the Melbourne Cup and Hooked on Scotch from box 8. The Chinese are right.

Yes, luck is always there. But the odds for Hooked on Scotch were reasonably calculable - ie much greater than what was offered where emotion came into play. The betting public did not do their sums.

To address another of your queries IBM would have trouble. Its biggest barrier (in attacking the subject like it did for chess) would be that chess is by definition a long game. The initial move is no more than that just a precursor to the several moves that might follow. Every pawn is followed by many others, all depending on what the opponent does, always with a long term plan in mind.

Dogs cannot and do not do that. They go like the clappers and the hell with what they knock over on the way. There is a final objective the lure but no guarantee as to how they might get to it. Sure, they would usually have a preferred course to follow but so do several other competitors which might get in the way. Thats where the luck comes into it and it is also why most big races, or any races, tend to be won by the leading one or two dogs (see Whiskey Riot and Western Envoy).

So IBM would have to forget about chess and first try to analyse what happens in a dog race, using many thousands of samples, selecting and weighting all the measurable variables involved, testing and testing, and then come up with conclusions which still covered only the major part of the action. Of course, all those variables would be different from one track to the next and from one dog (pawn) to the next. A fair knowledge of greyhound racing would be a help. And all that work might cover only 80% of the need the remainder dependent on the nous of the user or punter.

But thats what we did for Greybase. It was often a tortuous path with much trial and error, numerous crashes which drove us nuts at times, and many improvements over a long period. (The initial program had to fit on a 340kb floppy because most users had no hard disk - like old Commodores).

We have done for greyhounds what Deep Blue did for chess.

But there is still no way of sensibly assessing what a stayer will do when racing twice within 7 days.

PS: Most heavy interference and falls in races are caused by dog A running into the backside of dog B.