Live box draws are an inefficient use of time and labour and introduce the potential for bias in the system - due to the equipment and how it is used. Computerised systems, which are audited, have no such problems.

Last I heard, bingo is computerised these days.

I know I had an issue years ago where I had a number of box 5's in a row, no matter what dog, what meeting I got box 5. I emailed them giving them the astronomical odds of that happening. My next box was box 1. I remember wondering how could it even happen and then I was looking at fields at Dapto and there was a race with a vacant box 5 AND reserves and then it clicked, what if they are taking dogs out of the computer draw and then manually inputting them after to give them the boxes they want.

Now I don't know what has actually been happening, and I don't know enough (well anything) about computer programming to know what can/cannot be done in terms of rigging the draw. However, if they simply showed the computer draw live like Victoria does it would take away a lot of the concerns that people have about it.

Jamie,

Computer programs can be programmed any way you want, including totally random draws, with no factors built in.

Even a simple GW basic program can do that.

I would like to see what sinister factors people think are built in box draw progams.

I could suggest one for future use, every second time the computer sees the greyhound trainer's initials as J.Q. , that greyhound will be drawn in box 5.

Computer box draws, billiard ball box draws, whatever....if someone is determined enough they will find a way to rort the system.

You mentioned poker machines...before they were computerized, they were just spinning wheels mathematically configured to return 15% profit from the machine.....but that did not stop evil characters from drilling into the side of the machines to lock one more of the spinning reels.

As for random draws, I gave my wife a powerball ticket once, with the numbers I had selected--- 1,2,3,4,5,6,7.

I had it thrown back at me..."impossible, it can't win" she said.... of course she was right, it didn't win....but I am still trying to explain that those seven numbers have the very same chance of coming up, as any other seven numbers between 8 and 45.

By all means ask for pretty pictures on your screen but your mathematical logic is terrible.

Random means it takes any one of 8 dogs and assigns it any one of 8 boxes. It is far simpler than a poker machine because it has fewer numbers to deal with and it does not have to allow for the 15%. It is not rocket science and that portion of the process would be quickly obvious to anyone doing the annual audit.

For box 5 bandits, the game is called statistics and probabilities. The next guy may well get a string of box 1s in a row (I recall Mystery Idle was one such).

That "computers can be programmed" is a tautology. That's the only way they work. What you are talking about is a human interfering with the pre-set program. That's a crime - probably fraud etc - which would cost the offender jail time far exceeding the cost of a crook box. In doing that, he might well stuff up other parts of the program or blow up the system. Who knows?

Ian is correct. Live with it. There are much bigger fish to fry.

A computer programmer pointed out to me once that it's not "logical for a computer" to do something randomly...........it was fascinating listening to him talk on the subject, sounded quite complex, but at the end of the day he cldn't believe this system was in place for this purpose.

Ian, as I have pointed out a few times on other threads, I have known of a boxdraw done live at the track then replicated as a 'live' draw on fasttrack 15 minutes later. I'm not suggesting foul play, just pointing out that someone in the office had the capability to program the outcome.
That leaves itself open to questions of integrity.

Bruce, as a breeder, owner, trainer and syndicate manager of racing greyhounds, I will choose which fish I wish to fry, rather than take advice from a 20th century journalist.

In NSW you nominate your dog and then wait until the fields appear already drawn.

Whether or not you agree with the computer system the Victorian system at least has the appearance of being transparent and above board. In NSW they can't even be bothered doing that much.

As a 21st century writer, commentator and form analyst (not a journalist), I have been hearing this same old boxing subject for decades, always with the same result - zero.

Not only that, but it suggests high-powered, highly-paid auditing firms in each state don't know what they are doing, but someone's mate knows better. Not too likely. It makes you wonder how we ever got to the moon.

Opening this thread I had hoped the discussion would be about OzChase in general, which must be the worst chunk of consumer information I have seen in a lifetime. It is a serious barrier to getting more people involved in greyhound racing. It is cumbersome, restrictive, error-prone, secretive and unfriendly.

I'll give you a tiny example.

The other day, GBOTA/Ozchase published a whole column of 2nd sectionals (which are not very helpful anyway) for a Wenty race but put them in the column for 1st sectionals. This is not an uncommon error. Forever more, those crook times will appear in any future formlines for those 8 dogs, thereby misleading anyone using those formguides. The system has no checks and balances, much like a newspaper with no editors or sub-editors.

Or take meeting results. In Ozchase you cannot download a file for a race or a meeting. It's blocked. To print out you will have to do it race by race - ie 10 or 12 jobs instead of one and it will contain less information than FastTrack shows on a single page for Vic meetings. You are then forcing the user to manually transcribe those Ozchase results to the place he wants to put them. A common outcome is then that the user/customer gets sick of it all and goes elsewhere.

I could go on.

Think your wrong on this one Bruce computerized thats it programmed and in there lies the problem what audit the ones they say they do have you seen the proof i doubt it live draws it the only honest way we have the technology so no reason why it can't happen.

This is my last try.

Since time immemorial crooks have been fiddling with gambling machines and related devices. As we speak, Crownbet is under the gun for allegedly inserting a stopper into some of their poker machines. Roulette is notorious for added thumb-operated controls. Fairground scammers even stop some coconut shies being knocked down. Wherever there is a mechanical device it can be accidently or deliberately altered. All these moves are designed to make a dollar for someone.

I have seen a wide variety of physical devices used to produce box numbers, usually for a final a week later. Nice touch. But every one of them is subject to the integrity of the device builder and the bloke operating it. It might be a bit of chewing gum or a tiny flaw in the wood or plastic - or whatever - but it is possible.

So what are we asking this crooked device operator to do? Jiggle something when the 1 box becomes available? Take a dislike to a trainer and jiggle the 5 box for him? Not likely but theoretically possible.

By comparison, you suggest pressing a button in official premises and under supervision and starting up the computer are potentially crooked methods. That means someone has bribed the operator and that operator has - by his own means, or with other help - manipulated a computer program to do what he wants it to do. To bring that about, there may be two people in the building who would have sufficient expertise to fiddle with the program - and later to de-fiddle it so no-one realises what has happened. (That is risky as the history of the fiddling will still exist in the bowels of the program - it is very hard to delete such info). Anyway, now the "fiddler" has to be paid off as well.

Presumably all this is paid for by a wealthy trainer who is desperate for box 1 or whatever. Of course, he and the fiddlers are leaving themselves open to criminal charges and years in jail, all to get a better box. Is it worth it?

Honestly, mate, they could not make a movie about this - no-one would believe it. Well, maybe the people who made THE STING would.

As for auditing claims - yes I have seen several written and signed statements by outside organisations assuring us that everything was done properly. Obviously, I am not competent to look over their shoulder while they do their job, but that applies to the million other audits done in this country every year.

In total, there is a greater probability of "errors" being made when using the physical options than there is using the remote computer options. One is small, the other is minute.

You could and you do.