I am surprised also that in this day and age in Australia where welfare is paramount that all dogs are not seeded, i.e. rails, middle and wide. Other countries around the world have been doing this for years.

So what happens if the whole field prefers the rail box?
How do they do the box draw?

Almost by definition, a physical system will produce more bias than a computerised program. Using the example I mentioned before, a tiny weight attached to the penny will change the odds in two-up. The same applies to dice at the casino. The shape of the Banjo, how it is held or a tiny difference in marble weights will also change the odds. Two identical putts on a golf green will produce slightly different results depending on whether a leaf is standing up or not.

In practice, we are asking the computer program to pick a number from a list of boxes and a number from a list of dogs and to do that some days prior to the race. It beggars belief that such a process - even in a bad program - could cook the results so as to favour one or the other runner.

If the program was "off" it would do it all the time and would therefore be independent of the dog/trainer/owner anyway. But the odds of that happening are billions to one.

On the other hand, it is always possible (in theory) for someone to intervene manually in the computer process, although there are measures to counter that and the intervention would be traceable - leading to fraud and a few years in jail.

NB: My understanding is that some or all authorities offer the public an opportunity to view the draw being made. I wonder how many can be bothered?

By comparison, I have heard stories from old-timers that a tenner in advance to the club secretary would do wonders for a good box (most were done in the office on race night then). All gossip, of course, but I respect their input. Mind you, I liked the liveliness and initiative some of those guys would show in organising race programs. Unfortunately, too many blotted their copybook so central grading eventually took over.

Box 1 - 1,3,7,1,3
Box 2 - 2,2,7.2
Box 3 -
Box 4 - 444466
Box 5 - 5,3,5,5,5
Box 6 -
Box 7 - 7,7
Box 8 - 8,4,4,8,7,8

Thanks Tony.
I thought it would then be a random draw.
Which is what I think Stephen was going to say.
Correct Steve?

I never did get an answer to the question.

AFAIK, the redraw function on OzChase was disabled in WA per the Auditor-General's recommendations in 2016. And for all other States using OzChase the redraw button is still available for use by the grader.

page 62 here for anyone interested in WA current policy. Of course redraw can still be done per the policy. Itś just that the button on the software was disabled in 2016 based on AG advice.

EXTERNAL LINK

First sectional speed seeding based on last five starts is the only way to solve that regardless of what boxes they drew in the preceding five races. The law of averages will prevail to seed correctly. It should be speed based seeding not box based anyway if you want to go down that path.

Put five equal early speed dogs all doing the same first sectionals to the first bend and watch carnage ensue. How they jump to first section is way more of a metric than whether they rail or come off at the bend if you've balanced the field by the time you hit the turn at the outset.

I'll take physics and recent performance that is measurable and quantifiable anyday over "observations and opinions" to seed a dog.

It's very problematic mate. Sectional history depends partly on what boxes each dog had. Then the dog running from 1 or 8 has more chances to record a fast time because it has fewer neighbours and/or dogs crossing it. Then even good beginners can vary by as much as 2 lengths in their sectional times. Then some dogs record fast times because they jump in front while others jump with the field but then run very fast to the marker. Other runners are affected according to whether they are crossed (a) at the jump or (b)on the way to the turn.

NB: My own lengthy surveys show that box 1 is worth a 0.9 length sectional bonus on average.

In general, sectional predictions are fairly reliable for higher class races, but much less so for dogs with less ability/experience.
Personally, I always used an average of the last 10 recent runs. Never rely on just one good run.

And all that is without seeding which also has some challenges. Who designates which is which? How might that classification be changed over time? Many wide runners learn from experience to stay in a bit closer. Some nominally wide runners do rail on the turns, others don't.

The English experience is barely useful as it involves seeding by the track manager, an outside lure and only six runners. But they do achieve a much more even distribution of winning boxes than in Oz. My own guess is that the most influential factor is the outside lure.

For cleaner running (and therefore more reliable sectionals) I suggest benefits can be obtained from (a) a long run to the turn, (b) wider gaps between each box and (c) wider positioning of the box structure on the track, thereby tending to put more space between runners after the jump. (The type of lure may have some impact as well but exactly what is arguable).

Note that UTS and others may not agree with (c) above, which is why you ended up with tightish drop-in boxes for Horsham 400m. I think they are wrong. I suspect they think dogs will obey instructions when in practice they are going to do whatever pleases them. It is also more expensive as you have to pay for the front-end loader and the operator.

Get rid of it. Its ridiculous.

Can you imagine the uproar if they used this method for Lotto?

Exactly, Steve......