Greyhound Racing New Zealand BOX DRAW REVIEW · 1.2 Processes of the Review 1.3 Basis of this...
Transcript of Greyhound Racing New Zealand BOX DRAW REVIEW · 1.2 Processes of the Review 1.3 Basis of this...
Greyhound Racing New Zealand
BOX DRAW REVIEW
Prepared for: Greg Kerr, Head of Racing
Greyhound Racing New Zealand
Prepared by: Kim Denny
Gaming Consultancy and Training Solutions Limited.
March 2017
GRNZ Box Draw Review Page 2
CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Objectives and Scope
1.2 Processes of the Review
1.3 Basis of this report
1.4 Summary of Findings
1.4.1 Operational Processes
1.4.2 Technical Processes
1.4.3 Influence of Greyhounds
1.4.4 Influence of Trainer
1.4.5 Influence of Other
2. BOX DRAW REVIEW PROCESS
2.1 The Operational Box Draw Process
2.2 The Technical Box Draw Process
3. SUPPORTING INFORMATION
3.1 Technical Process Summary
3.2 Statistical Information
3.2.1.1 Winning percentages by box.
3.2.1.2 Placing percentages by box.
3.2.1.3 Winning percentages by box and track.
3.2.1.4 Placing percentages by box and track.
3.2.1.5 Multiple entries by Trainers.
3.2.1.6 Industry feedback.
GRNZ Box Draw Review Page 3
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Objectives and Scope
Greyhound Racing New Zealand (GRNZ) requested a review of the integrity of the processes in place to select box draws
for greyhound races conducted for Greyhound meetings within New Zealand. The scope of this review was to determine that
there are adequate controls to ensure the integrity of the box draw process.
This was completed by;
Observation of the processes
Discussions with GRNZ management
Discussions with selected GRNZ Racing Club personnel
Discussions with selected Industry members
Reviewing the results of box draws over selected periods
Documentation of the results
1.2 Processes of the Review
This review was conducted primarily by observation of the processes and discussions with various key persons within the
Greyhound Racing Industry. The approach involved;
Understanding the process through discussions and observations with Matt Claridge and Roger Moore of GRNZ
management.
Contacting Industry related persons to invite feedback related to the Box Draw process.
Documenting and evaluating the processes.
Completing a review of the results of box draws over a period of > 5years.
Reviewing the processes to determine the effectiveness and integrity of the Box Draw
GRNZ Box Draw Review Page 4
1.3 Basis of this Report
This report has been prepared in accordance with the objectives provided prior to the commencement as set out in
1.1 above.
1.4 Summary of Findings
Findings of this review are summarised on the next page.
GRNZ Box Draw Review Page 5
1.4 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
1.4.1 Operational Processes
There are no opportunities for the box draw process to be manipulated in any way.
Changes that are made are tracked and a report is generated. There is no review of why changes are made. I would
recommend a review system for this be introduced.
There are anomalies identified as to the reasons for redraws, this relates to the reasons at club level due to differing criteria.
Clubs operate “points systems” based on criteria such as how many nominations have been made before a race? How many
missed races? I did not obtain full lists from each club but there are definite inconsistencies between clubs.
This criterion (at club level) is then used to determine whether a dog gets into a field and on occasions this information is not
included when the field selection and subsequent box draw is undertaken. To avoid this confusion for all parties and reduce
the number of occasions redraws are required, I would recommend that GRNZ review this process with a view to
standardise the criteria at all tracks. This could also reduce the burden at club level by introducing this information as part of
the GRNZ “On Track” systems.
1.4.2 Technical Processes
Little technical information is available at GRNZ.
The basis of the program that generates the random number selection Microsoft Access is an extensively used program
using algorithm for random selection. Documentation of the Technical processes as provided by Sandfield is included as 3.1
in this report.
From reviewing this documentation and from Industry feedback there is a recurrent issue.
GRNZ Box Draw Review Page 6
This relates to the Box Draw process that it only selects a box for each dog it does not randomly sort or select the list of
dogs.
In the technical information available covering the “Box Assignment Process” it states;
“Get a list of dogs to be placed into boxes (maximum of eight dogs). Note that no order is assigned to this list and the result
record set that we iterate through is provided by SQL server without any specific ordering. It is our understanding that in
these situations, SQL Server will use the primary key to apply a “de facto” sort on the records and in this case means that
essentially the records are delivered in the order they were created in the system”.
Based on the above, the randomness of the process is being questioned. The fact that some people’s perception is the field
(list) that is entered into database can be changed. There is also a perception that if a trainer has multiple entries in one race
then there dogs will be entered first so that their dogs are drawn first. The reasoning expressed during the course of this
review included statements like “if my dog is intentionally placed last on the list then all other dogs in the race will be
allocated a number before mine is and my dog will only be able to be allocated the last remaining number?” Questioning
where is the randomness of 1 to 8 inclusive if my dog is 8th on the list? Obviously this does not necessarily mean that the
allocated box will be pre-determined and can still be any number between 1 and 8.
I believe that the above was at least part of the reason that Greyhound racing Victoria (GRV) changed their box draw
system? The system now used by GRV randomly selects a dog then randomly selects an available box for that dog.
This eliminates any perception of whether a dog is being given equal opportunity and provides a more transparent process.
I recommend GRNZ evaluate the option of enhancing the current software to include random selection of a dog from the list
before randomly selecting an available box. I firmly believe this is the single biggest issue identified by persons involved in
the Industry.
GRNZ Box Draw Review Page 7
1.4.3 Influence of Greyhounds
There is definitely no possibility of the Box Draw being influenced by the Greyhound information either as the registered
name of the greyhound or by ownership.
The process has no knowledge of the name of the dog or trainer and has no bearing on the order of the dogs as they are
assigned boxes.
1.4.4 Influence of Trainers
During this review there were several expression of concern made by Industry related persons regarding the sequence in
which nominations were presented for the box draw process? Particularly when a trainer had multiple runners in the same
event. This is addressed above and also in 3.2.5 showing the results of a trainer having multiple runners in a single event.
1.4.5 Influence of Other
While any software today could possibly be subjected to interference, I am confident that GRNZ have adequate safe guards
in place to prevent or at least detect any interference. Also the nature of the way system is used it has excellent internal
controls and It would be difficult make unauthorised changes.
For transparency I would recommend that wherever possible a redraw is carried out in the presence of a second GRNZ
person and appropriate documentation is maintained for review purposes.
GRNZ Box Draw Review Page 8
2. BOX DRAW REVIEW PROCESS
2.1 Operational Box Draw Process
The events leading up to the actual box draw are as follows;
A scheduled Race Meeting is entered in GRNZ Access Database. This information is provided from the NZRB Racing
Calendar.
When the time of the first race is entered this automates the opening and closing date/time of nominations.
There are three methods of nominations;
by login to GRNZ website thedogs.co.nz
by phone to GRNZ
by fax to GRNZ
Nominations are processed by meeting, greyhound and preferred race.
There are normally two GRNZ staff allocated to these tasks however there are a number of GRNZ staff who can
perform these tasks.
Prior to nominations closing a recheck of the nominations is made to ensure correctness.
A check is made for each greyhound to make sure that its grade has not changed between nominations opening and
nominations closing. A report is generated which shows all of the nominations for the particular meeting in time order
of when they were nominated and by who.
The report also shows if there are any errors in grading (e.g. Greyhound X is a C4 dog and cannot be nominated for a
C5 event). This, or any other error detected can be corrected by contacting the club before the fields are assembled.
GRNZ Box Draw Review Page 9
Nominations are then closed and are available to clubs on the website who can commence assembling the fields. The
club will follow the required selection criteria. This includes clubs individual criteria and the “Guarding Rule”.
The club then follows the selection criteria to determine the type of races that will be scheduled and field selection.
Selection is performed using a drop down – in which order they select is up to the club. This could be alphabetical or
otherwise.
GRNZ personnel now access the meeting in the database and the “Box Draw All Races” is now actioned.
The scheduled meeting complete with box draws is normally released on the GRNZ website thedogs.co.nz about
three hours after nominations close. These remain on line as the final field’s right up to the meeting date. This is to
allow time for queries regarding selection criteria. If errors or incorrect entries are identified all such cases are logged
and a full explanation of the reason is recorded, for example a club realises they have not considered the ‘guarding
rule’ and a redraw for particular race may be necessary.
Once confirmed a redraw is required GRNZ personnel can go into a race and select ‘redraw field’, the details are then
documented including reasons for the redraw. There is no record of any review process of this although I do believe
there should be to ensure the integrity of the process.
From the information that was available during the review it is apparent the main reasons for redraws being required
is due to clubs overlooking the individual clubs criteria or the ‘guarding rules’. Not every clubs rules are the same and
can lead to confusion. Whereas if standard rules were in place at all clubs this would eliminate confusion and allow
this information to be included as part of the GRNZ database providing a further measure to prevent greyhounds
being placed in an incorrect event.
GRNZ Box Draw Review Page 10
2.2 Technical Box Draw Process
The software and applied functionality for GRNZ’s On Track System was provided and is supported by Sandfield a
software company based in Auckland.
A summary of the technical box draw was provided to Crowe Howarth in 2013 when a previous review was
undertaken. Discussions with Peter Ammon of Sandfields has provided confirmation that there have been no changes
made to the methodology of the Box Draw and the documentation provided by Sandfields in 2013 is still relevant.
The application is a Microsoft Access ADP and uses Microsoft Visual Basic to generate Random Number Generator
(RNG). The functionality of the On Track system which encompasses the Box Draw process applies a standard
Microsoft Random Number Generator to select box draws. Technically the selections are ‘pseudo-random’ as truly
random selection cannot be calculated using an algorithm.
As noted in the previously published review of this system, the random number generator has no record of the name
of the greyhound or the name or details of the trainer.
When a greyhound is selected, it is randomly allocated a box between 1 and 8. If a box has already been allocated
then it generates another number until a free box has been found. This process is completed without advice or
recording of how many sweeps are performed before a box is allocated.
A strong point of criticism from a number of Industry related people I spoke to during the course of this review was
that although the draw is selected randomly the entry of individual greyhounds is not. The list of dogs is determined
purely by the sequence in which the nominations are received. Therefore if a trainer were to nominate four
greyhounds for a same event they could appear on the list sequentially, for example the first four on the list. This
appears to be the biggest cause of concern to people spoken to, that their perception is that this process allows these
four greyhounds to receive box draws next to each other?
GRNZ Box Draw Review Page 11
In comparison, Greyhound Racing Victoria Fast Track system works differently in that it firstly randomly selects a
greyhound from the list and then randomly selects an available box. Whereas GRNZ process only randomly selects a
box for each greyhound. This is a major point of contention with a number of people associated with Greyhound
Racing in New Zealand and this will be a recommendation in this report that considerations be given to changing this
process.
Even taking into account the same general principles are used for both systems the VRC system is arguably more
transparent.
Attached as 3.1 is a summary of the Technical Box Draw Process.
GRNZ Box Draw Review Page 12
3. SUPPORTING INFORMATION
3.1 Technical Draw Process
The process below is a summary of the technical box draw process provided by the Stanfield Solution Manager.
Confirmation that there have been no software changes or enhancements made to this process since the previous review in
2013 was received from Wayne Hyman Solutions Manager Stanfield on March 29th 2017.
GRNZ BOX DRAWS
Pseudo Random Number Generator
The Race Day System application is a Microsoft Access 2007 ADP and therefore uses Microsoft Visual Basics for
Applications (VBA) pseudo Random Number Generator (RNG) function called “Rnd”. This function returns a random number
between 0 and 1 and this is converted to a decimal number to an integer between 1 and 8 inclusive.
Note that all algorithmic RNG’s are “pseudo” RNG’s as they use mathematical formula and algorithms to generate random
numbers. They are not truly random and they do not have a period of repeatability (although this period is typically an
enormous number before the pattern repeats). Truly random numbers can’t be calculated using an algorithm. An accepted
way to obtain truly random numbers is via the use of atmospheric static and generators exist on the internet that use such
approaches (for instance www.random.org).
RNG Seeding
It is common to “seed” a random number generator before first use. We seed the RNG using the “Randomize” VBA function
called without parameters. When this function is called without parameters, the current system time is used as the seed
value. It is our understanding from the Microsoft documentation on this function that the milliseconds component of the
current system time is used by “Randomize”.
GRNZ Box Draw Review Page 13
This means that even if the Randomize function was always called at the same general time of the day, we always get high
variance on the number used as the seed as it is the milliseconds component (0.000 and 0.999).
We have also conducted testing around one reseed and reseeding between each draw. As seeding a pseudo-RNG can
have a big impact on the random numbers that are generated, where and when the pseudo-RNG is seeded is vital to the
overall “randomness” of the numbers generated. Therefore we only seed the pseudo-RNG when the Race Day application is
opened and not before each box draw.
Box Assignment Process
In general terms the process is like this:
1. Get a list of dogs to be placed into boxes (maximum of eight dogs). Note that no order is assigned to this list and the
result record set that we iterate through is provided by SQL server without any specific ordering. It is our understanding
that in these situations, SQL Server will use the primary key to apply a “de facto” sort on the records and in this case
means that essentially the records are delivered in the order they were created in the system.
2. Take the first dog in the list and randomly pick a number between 1 and 8 inclusive. If the box is available (not assigned
to another dog and not to be left vacant if less than eight starters) then the dog is assigned to that box.
3. Continue to iterate through each dog in the list and randomly pick a box between 1 and 8 inclusive until a valid box is
found, then assign the dog to that box.
A key point to note is that the process has no knowledge of the name of the dog or the trainer and this has no bearing on the
order of the dogs as they are assigned to boxes.
We have also conducted testing whereby the list of dogs is also randomised before iterating through them and randomly
placing them into boxes. On large samples (10,000 box draws) we could detect no discernible difference in the
“randomness” by first randomising the list of dogs and the theory would suggest that doing so should not alter the
“randomness” of the draw.
GRNZ Box Draw Review Page 14
Comparisons with Greyhound Racing Victoria (GRV) Box Draw Code
After reviewing the GRV code (specifically their code for non handicap races as they have specific logic to handle
handicaps) we found the same general principles were used. The following differences were noted:
1. GRV used the Microsoft.Net pseudo-RNG function in place of the Microsoft VBA pseudo-RNG function used by GRNZ.
2. GRV randomly selects a dog then randomly selects an available box whereas the GRNZ process just randomly selects a
box for each dog.
As noted above, we have conducted testing between a random dog list and an implicitly unordered (as provided by SQL
server) dog list and found no detectable differences in “randomness” of the box draw. However it must be pointed out that
this was a subjective assessment of the resulting box draw distributions and does not constitute a detailed mathematical
assessment. That said, logic would suggest that if selecting a box is “sufficiently random” then first randomly selecting a dog
would not make the process”more random” or any “less fair”.
GRNZ Box Draw Review Page 15
3.2 Statistical Information
In order to quantify whether the actual draw provides an advantage for a dog statistical information from the GRNZ website
www.thedogs.co.nz was collated.
If there is a perception within the Industry that some trainers dogs are being advantaged by the draw they receive then surely the
statistical information available would reflect which draws are the most successful and also the information would reflect that some
trainers receive more favourable draws than others.
From this review and others completed previously both here and Australia shows conclusively that it is impossible to favour a dog
by trainer or any other information as this information is not included as part of the box draw process.
During this review confirmation was received from the Sandfield Solution Manager stating “A key point to note is that the process
has no knowledge of the name of the dog or the trainer and this has no bearing on the order of the dogs as they are assigned
boxes”.
The only other assumption that can be made, as mentioned previously and repeatedly in this report, is the only avenue not
controlled by the automated process is the sequence in which dogs are entered in the system before the box draw process is
requested.
3.2.1 Winning percentages by distance.
The information for this spreadsheet was obtained from the GRNZ website combining the percentages listed for individual
distances at every track.
This information highlights what percentage of wins has been achieved from all boxes showing a range of distances.
This was intended to highlight whether there is any consistency of a particular box(es) being favoured over particular distances at
all tracks.
GRNZ Box Draw Review Page 16
3.2.2 Placing percentages by distance.
The information for this spreadsheet was obtained from the GRNZ website combining the percentages listed for individual
distances at every track.
This information highlights what percentage of placings has been achieved from all boxes showing a range of distances.
This was intended to highlight whether there is any consistency of a particular box(es) being favoured over particular distances at
all tracks.
3.2.3 Winning percentage by box draw.
The information for this spreadsheet was obtained from the GRNZ website combining the percentages listed for all distances at
each track.
This information highlights what percentage of wins has been achieved from all boxes regardless of the distance.
This was intended to highlight whether there is any consistency of a particular box(es) being favoured regardless of distance and
regardless of the track raced at.
3.2.4 Placing percentage by box draw.
The information for this spreadsheet was obtained from the GRNZ website combining the percentages listed for all distances at
each track.
This information highlights what percentage of placings has been achieved from all boxes regardless of the distance.
This was intended to highlight whether there is any consistency of a particular box(es) being favoured regardless of distance and
regardless of the track raced at.
GRNZ Box Draw Review Page 17
3.2.5 Examples of trainer with multiple entries
One of the most frequent comments made by Industry related persons spoken to during this review was directed at the draws
received by trainers with large numbers of dogs in their kennels. There were two main comments, firstly that there is a perception
that these trainers receive more favourable draws and secondly when there are multiple numbers of dogs in an event with the same
trainer they are likely to be drawn next to each other?
I am not aware of whether an advantage is gained by having kennel mates drawn alongside each other and secondly if there were
any advantage how many dogs would need to be placed in boxes side by side to achieve this advantage.
The attached spreadsheet was completed by identifying races where a trainer had three of more dogs entered in the event and
collating the information highlighting what boxes were drawn and whether there was any consistency of whether there was any
basis to the perceptions of favouritism?
In total 54 races in a three month period were identified where the same trainer had three or more dogs in the same race.
The statistics show that there is spread of assignment to boxes varying from 9.5% being the lowest for Box 1 and Box 7 showing
16% as the highest. This would considered to be an expected result considering the randomness of the process and does not show
that this particular trainer received more favourable draws during this period over any other dog in each event.
Of the 54 races analysed there were 9 occasions where 3 or more dogs from this trainer were assigned boxes next to each other.
From the 54 events the dogs from this trainers kennels raced in events as follows;
On two occasions there were 6 starters from these kennels, in both races 4 dogs were drawn alongside.
On six occasions there were 5 starters from these kennels which in two races 4 dogs were drawn alongside.
On twenty occasions there 4 starters from these kennels which in two races 4 dogs were drawn alongside and in two races 3 dogs
were drawn alongside.
On twenty six occasions there were 3 starters from these kennels and on only one occasions were all 3 dogs drawn alongside.
GRNZ Box Draw Review Page 18
3.2.6 Industry Feedback
Ideally I would have liked to have been able to have spoken with more people as part of the this review, however I do believe that
the people I did speak to provided a good mix from within the Industry both from their roles and their personal and professional
opinions as well as geographically. I spoke with Trainers and Club Officials in both the North and South Islands.
I am extremely grateful to each of them for their time and for expressing their opinions candidly.
There is no doubt that there is anybody who considers the present systems, including the Box draw process to be in any way to be
manipulated.
It is very evident however that a number of parties spoken with do believe that the current Box Draw process has one flaw in that
the perception is the listings of the dogs prior to the automated box draw could provide trainers with a preferred draw depending on
the placement of their dog on the list?
The general opinion is that this part of the process is completed by manual input and therefore could be altered at any stage,
maybe not with intent to manipulate but the draw could be affected by the placement on this list.
As it can be seen throughout this report there is concern by a number of people within the Industry in regard to this process and a
number of people made reference to the fact GRV have a system in place which as well randomly selecting a box it first randomly
selects a dog.
Having a system that randomly selects a dog before selecting a box draw may not make it any more random but it would eliminate
the perception that maybe the existing process could provide a bias towards dogs dependent on the positioning on the list.
A suggestion was made that GRNZ could provide more information and assurance in regard to the integrity of the box draw by
putting more information on the GRNZ website showing how the process works or even having a segment on “Dogzone” where the
presenter could be provided with information for the audience? Maybe even a representative from GRNZ could appear on Dogzone
and outline not only the Box Draw process but also the objective and findings of this review?