Wasn't privy obviously to their early education but I did rate the wenty fri/sat meets for about 3 yrs commencing in 2011 Jason, and sure they raced on a twin lure there....I didn't notice much different re form, esp when interstate dogs came to wenty off the single lure sys, say in vic. As you say tho that's when rewards and grab trials were allowed.

I cannot imagine how difficult it is now getting dogs to chase and whenever I watch a meet nowadays, see the result and just shudder.

Whatever the scandal didn't ruin in this once great sport, abolishing rewards and changing lure systems def finished it off for an interested punta like myself.

The worrying thing is its hard to work out what caused what because one change didn't appear to be properly observed before another brought in. From my observation the style of racing changed so I'd have to say the lure changes affected racing the most, probably followed by the lack of rewards.

Looking back almost 3 yrs now I laugh as I actually started rating meetings in a different State because that track had the lure closest to the rail, but that was short lived as they too began trialing a centre track lure. You cld actually see the differences in performance of some dogs sectionally, who switched from one lure to the next and how badly if effected some.

But hey, if you think no one listens to trainers, even less listen to punters and they were the pillars of the industry in Vic anyway.

Good luck with your new acquisitions.

I note you and Jason have very firm ideas about what constitutes a decent lure. You also use sectional performances to validate that view. Generally, you both prefer a close-in and single lure.

Still, that dual arm lure at Wenty (a GBOTA device) worked well enough for a great many dogs. I have never chased up the comparisons in any detail but I have certainly seen nothing that made me sit up and ask a question - and that is what I used to spend 24/7 checking out.

Moreover, your finding must be considered against a background where sectional times/performance varies from race to race - basically due to the personal characteristics of each dog. There are big variables there, even with really good beginners whose performances vary over a 2 lengths range.

No doubt your particular dogs displayed some sort of preference - I would not know - but the broad finding has to be that such huge differences in keenness could be due to a combination of many things, not just the lure.

For example, the box apertures were different in NSW from those in Victoria, which then makes it more or less difficult for the dog which has to crouch down differently. And so on. So, too with the box draw, its neighbours or the class of the race. Or did it have a bad hair day?

Again, I point out the NZ case where dogs routinely move from one track to another and from one lure type to another without apparent hassle.

I can't possibly comment on the ground prey v the birds or whatever and nor can anyone else as that variable has never been studied. It may well be a factor with dog X but not with dog Y.

In reality, and in history, the greyhound is bred to sight and run down moving prey, but never birds in flight (retrievers do that but only to bring home that prey). Of course, we have all seen a dog in transit being diverted by a bird flying across the field at a low height.

In short, all the available evidence says that a picking up a lure - or any given prey - is primarily a matter of movement. Exactly what sort of movement and where can be debated or studied but anything other than movement is likely to be minor in its impact.

As for nonnies, today we have to consider that today's races, on average, are being staffed by lower standard dogs while the number of races is remaining constant. By definition, a greater proportion of dogs with low chasing incentives must be present. More will fall also into the "chasing the pack" category.

It is far from simple arithmetic.

Incidentally, UTS claims that the nature of the lure, mostly the hooped arm lure, does influence the course that each dog selects to get around the track. There may well be some sort of influence for some dogs in that but I am sceptical of it as a design guide. Why? Because my interpretation is that by far the dominant factor is the personal habit of the dog itself. It has already decided that it wants to rail or run wide because that is in its DNA. It will do that regardless of the type of lure in use.

Well you're wrong Bruce, because according to your quote, the studies to which you so often champion has clearly stated that the hoop arm directly influences the course each dog selects....but how dumb is this.....isn't that what you'd expect it to do ? You need a study to tell you that? You have a lure in the centre of the track the dogs will run to meet it - its not rocket science.

The problem is they roll back towards the rail, then run out to meet it, then roll back towards the rail again, and this goes on for the whole race. Of course how much they do this will depend on the dog. Most people say this mainly happens on the bends. Yes it's more obvious on the bends but if you look very closely it happens throughout the whole race.

My issue is that this makes for unfair racing for run on types in that they are constantly being checked, not hugely checked, but constantly disappointed when making their runs and that maybe what's causing dogs to turn it up more in the run. I know I get frustrated watching this happen to them, imagine what it's like for them. It wldn't take much to turn them off.

Then there's the issue of wide runners. Once a widey lands in front of another widey the second widey cant win the race as it's too far off the track.

Unfair racing on two counts doesn't appeal to me, it ruins the sport and detracts from the integrity of the race, in that imo every dog needs to be given a fair chance to win the race and centre track hoop lures just don't do that.

Your points may well have some validity but I ask how much. A lot of these factors will fall into the 50/50 or 70/30 or whatever areas - they are overlapping and complex.

UTS have drawn conclusions which are based on incomplete assumptions - ie they established "facts" based on what they measured in front of them (film and GPS) but they have not necessarily filtered that through practical knowledge and experience of what dogs do. Both are needed.

Let me over-simplify: with a wide lure, some dogs will head for the rail regardless, while with a close lure some dogs will still head wide. Others may vary from race to race. Young, clumsy or lower class dogs may vary even more. But neither close or wide option can achieve perfection. Nor can doubling up on the bunny as we are now seeing.

In an way, the situation with sectional times is comparable. With a high class field you can predict positions fairly well (that's what won the Melbourne Cup the other day). With a low class race, you can't.

The idea of the hooped lure was to generate more space between runners and thereby reduce interference. My opinion is that it works in the straights to a limited extent but not really on the turns where most of the interference occurs. Paradoxically, you will also see plenty of interference on straight tracks as dogs move to "where they want to be".

Bruce to me it appears much of your average times is data based, as I've said before not taking into account track speed and no accounting of checks to the dog in the run, where as I'd watch every race 6,8,10 times or whatever it took. Maybe its the experience I have over 40yrs of watching races extremely closely.

No one's after perfection but I am after consistency and the hoop lure never gave up that. It also mostly gives you goat track racing in that the the run on types and wide runners are severely disadvantaged. Now these aren't necessarily the slower dogs, as I wld look to back dogs that ran grp dog sectionals, Quite often these were run on types and therefore likely the reason my figures took a massive dive on the hooped lure.

Either way neither one of us is going to convince the other. We stick to what we know, the tragedy of all this is that it was all so unnecessary. The knee jerk reaction to the scandal has cost them dearly, I'd hate to think how much income has been lost both to the Gov't and the industry.

The bottom line is fair racing to all competitors that is what made the sport great, and what attracts the myriads of punters with all their theories chancing their hand.

As I said it ain't rocket science.

I have no way of responding to your problem of a drop in wins in Melbourne, other than to say that there has been a steady fall in field standards in recent years all as a function of more (ie worse) pups out of each litter getting into actual races. Why do you think I nominated this as one of three reasons for getting out of the punting game?

I will let go your special point about compensating for interference as I have already answered that in some detail. Some people like doing that but our findings are that it does not work well.

However, you are regularly jumping to conclusions about how my system works and cherrypicking odd features. Not good. For the benefit of all and sundry even trainers here are the basic ingredients of my system ..

Best of Career
Best of last 5 runs
Worst of last 5 runs deleted
Average of last 5 runs
Repeat all of the above for 1st sectionals
Penalty for unsuitable box (see winning box stats)
Penalty for boxed upside down
Penalty for absence of recent form
Penalty for out-of-suitable distance
Penalty for track new to dog
Graduated penalty/bonus for declining/improving form
Race times all corrected for estimated impact of meeting conditions !!!!!
Track to track conversion values set by analysis of same-dog performances at each.

Otherwise ..

In each of the above cases, the emphasis is adjustable by the user or he can use defaults.
Use of more than the last 5 runs is of negligible extra value.
2nd sectionals and run home times ignored as of no additional value.
Other intelligence is available post-calculation eg best distance, best track, best box.
All values and times are based on exhaustive analysis of thousands of performances.
Times and values changed as and if conditions are varied at one track (eg post-rebuilding).
For new or changed distances 3 to 6 months experience is required for reasonable accuracy.
Every aspect is tested by varying values to see if predictions become better or worse.
Handicap times are manually corrected to reflect the standard distance. (Be wary of GRV guides)

In General .

The programs prime task is to identify and value each and every factor and present it in a handy format. It is not designed to be a tip sheet.
It is intended to provide reliable ammunition to the user, after which he can apply any special knowledge to the running and the outcome and so adjust predicted chances.
All the above takes up 460 tracks x six screen pages for each of overall and sectional times thats 5,520 pages. (Some now discontinued, of course).
It is no longer for sale as the market has radically changed it now relies on Mysteries and tipsters.
It is a DOS Access program and the effort to upgrade it to WIN is not feasible commercially.

Now thats everything except for the algorithm. I cant tell you that and, if I could, I would have to shoot you anyway. Copyright.

Two points:
(i) it appears I'm right in saying it's mainly databased
(ii)if you don't include the 2nd section & ptp section for that matter, you cant claim to be doing sectionals as they are the most important to not only myself but a vast number of punters.....especially the mid race section.
For example 600m races mid race sections are vital...it's how a good dog puts himself into a race.

Now knowing this, it's quite obvious how you come to your conclusions about the hoop lure - you are not actually studying the race in its entirety because you don't assess the mid race & ptp sections. This prevents you evaluating how dogs are positioning themselves when accelerating during various stages in a race. Data is great, but for me it's about what I can get from the the actual race then convert and adjust the time which reflects the rating. No average times - this way you can say this is exactly how this dog ran, on this day for each section of this particular race and you can compare its sectionals and overall times to what any other dog has run lately or in its past.

Centre track hoop lures prevented me from doing that accurately enough which has been reflected in my results I posted earlier. This in turn is what caused me to leave the sport. I am in absolutely no doubt about that.

Not at all saying you wont make money from what you did. Doing something is far better than doing little or nothing, however when I did form I specifically wanted to know what each dog ran each time it stepped out and therefore be in a position to evaluate its actual ability in each of those runs. Once again no average times, adjusted times and adjusted sections.

Not saying average times don't serve a purpose as they no doubt do to you. I personally don't like them as they are not accurate enough for what I want to know about a particular dog race at any given time.

1. You use the term "mainly databased" derogatively. I presume the alternative is to ask the fairies at the bottom of the garden.

2. You and others are forever telling me what I do - you never ask, you just tell and therefore make incorrect assumptions.

3. The only conclusion I have come to about lures is that the case is still open, not least because it is likely that other aspects of the race are more important.

In passing, I should state that 2nd sectionals are often missing in published formguides and run-home times are never published anywhere. Consequently, your "vast number of punters" would not have a clue about the numbers unless they personally followed the semaphore board after each race at every track and then developed methods of comparing one with the other. That would have to be "databased", of course.

I forgot one thing. You instanced the value of your approach for 600 races. Good luck.

My position - and this is quotable - is that I would not dare to bet on any 600s, and never have, for simple arithmetical reasons.

Finding overs is hard enough when you have to first overcome statutary takeouts of 14% to 25%, and more for F/O. With a jumbled, disruptive start, you need to add perhaps 10 to 20 points to that challenge, obviously putting them in the much too hard basket regardless of the price structure. They are a bookies' delight.

This is the same principle that applies to most 400m races which also boast a bend start. Their dividends are always higher than for, say, 450m or 520m races on the same track.

1. No I actually complimented you and your partner on the work you'd done in creating your system. There is data and then there's the alternative data+ (not fairies), which is your educated assessment factored into the data. I don't see that as being derogatory. Data+ makes for an extremely informed opinion about a dog race.

2. I can only speak for myself there, saying I sometimes respond to what you write therefore only have that info to go by.

3. You need to understand,break down and adjust times in all aspects of the race to have a holistic view of what happened in a race. I realise it's a lot of work breaking down 6 sectionals for a 500m+ race, nonetheless it's what's required if you are to truly understand how having a lure almost centre track can affect the dogs that chase it.

Your last 'in passing' comment : I'm talking about full time form guys there, the rest are gamblers :)
Yes it's databased but they create the data(not just copy it), by watching the race, adjusting the times and breaking it down into sections.
re your additional point about the 600m races......if you were to consider mid race sections you'd find them increasingly appealing to bet on imo. Since you don't consider those sections your attitude towards them is understandable. That doesn't mean that every punter is in the same boat. The way you write it everyone who bets on them is doomed. That's not a given at all. If you do a third of the work you're likely to get less than a third of the reward. But we digress from the topic.

My reading here is that there are as many "best" types of lure as there are people making comments. I imagine the same applies to training techniques or feed practices.

So all I can conclude is that the best lure is the one that generates the most space between runners - ie one that reduces the potential for interference.

Logically, that would be the high hooped (centre) lure but we have now tossed that out, so where to now?

It seems that we should choose one and stick to it all over the country - racetracks, trial tracks, education establishments, etc - thereby mandating that dogs have the same lure throughout their lifetime.

100% correct Raymond.
Anyone who has ever reared a pup in an open paddock knows this!

I wonder how many UTS professors and administrators have ?

The purpose of your comment is ...........?

I have had, and still have, many agreements and disagreements with UTS, in which cases I supply them with full facts and reasoning to add to their own discussions. Others are free to do the same. You can read their interim report to GRNSW plus a string of papers under a UTS-greyhound search.

However, I am puzzled when a bloke knows he is going to race against a high lure but persists in educating his pups with "a lure close to the ground". And I am not sure how the new dual lure in Vic is classed - is it low, medium or high in GRV-speak?

Meantime, all UTS points go straight to the relevant state authority. UTS makes no decisions, authorities do. What is missing are the reasons for decisions made by those authorities. Their attitude appears to be "we will tell you what is good for you".

By the way, I would love to pull up the film of a dog in the home straight when it lost all chance when distracted by a bird flying overhead. Sadly, I can't find it but it is there somewhere. (I think it may even have made the TV News). There must have been other such cases.

personal experience is golden, commentators like yourself shld try it sometime and get involved

It finds that there is a relationship between the height of a dog's head when galloping and the type of lure in use - such that this is a reason to prefer one type over another.

I am still reading and re-reading the paper in an effort to understand what they are getting at, and how.

Meantime, I observe dogs going around, many of which race with their heads held fairly high, others not so much.

Similarly, we see plenty of dogs going after the centre lure but they are scraping the paint when they do it. How does that work?

Humans, too. Who would remember Reg Gasnier, champion NRL centre, who ran with his head in the sky? Others almost crouch down. Still others stay a little lower but partly to make their arm fends more powerful (see also Dusty in AFL). Track athletes are variable as well.

We are all different. So much so that one size will never fit all. Be wary about jumping to conclusions.

The lure change probably being arguably the biggest ballsup in greyhound racing to date. Thank goodness they've somewhat seen the light by reintroducing a lower to the ground lure, closer to the rail.