Daveski

I did notice that after the letter there was an apology for "Parliamentary intelligence".  Surely that term is one of the great oxymorons of our time!

Basically, you're looking for the Beyer Ratings - the guy who developed them has written a number of books on the topic.  The ratings themselves have become an industry standard in the US.
In simple terms, what the Beyer ratings do is first adjust for the course difference - whether it is running fast or slow.  This is done by class so on any given day you can compare times by class and then add or subtract based on whether the times overall are faster or slower.
Once you then have accurate class based times for a course and class, you can then more accurately compare times and adjust for any course based bias.  The key is that averages by course don't take into account class.
For NZ dogs, I've found a simple average by course provides a reasonable marker but I haven't yet added the adjustment for whether the course is running fast or slow.

Thought Andy did a great job. Can’t be easy looking at a tv. Can’t glance back to see dogs., did his homework and knew  about racing styles of dogs.  Well done. 

It's worth noting for the greys that while they do go UP for a win, after three fourths (or worse) in a row they come back down the grades.

I must be in a contrary mood today but I suppose what worries the most is that so many posts here demonstrate the lack of willingness of some racing people to embrace change.
Newspapers and printed publications are dying in every industry.  But it's not just that.  Punters have more information than they have every had - it's just that it's not printed.
As for the race days, sports entertainment - be it racing or rugby - has take two different paths.  A smaller number of "events" attract attendance - in rugby, tests largely sell out but even super rugby is struggling to attract attendance.  Conversely, we've never had better access to live sport or racing.
And yes Pam - a great point.  BGP shows that there is a way ahead … and I bet .01% of BGP complain about the lack of printed info because they are living in the present, not the past. 

I must be in a contrary mood today but I suppose what worries the most is that so many posts here demonstrate the lack of willingness of some racing people to embrace change.
Newspapers and printed publications are dying in every industry.  But it's not just that.  Punters have more information than they have every had - it's just that it's not printed.
As for the race days, sports entertainment - be it racing or rugby - has take two different paths.  A smaller number of "events" attract attendance - in rugby, tests largely sell out but even super rugby is struggling to attract attendance.  Conversely, we've never had better access to live sport or racing.
And yes Pam - a great point.  BGP shows that there is a way ahead … and I bet .01% of BGP complain about the lack of printed info because they are living in the present, not the past. 

Criticism of the numbering system simply undermines any legitimate criticisms of the site.  It's simply criticism for criticism sake - and with respect, a lack of understanding and a reluctance to accept change.
I agree the old numbering system such as 201 was easy - on any given date, that would be meeting 2 race 1.  However, under that system you can't bet on meeting 2 today and meeting 2 in a couple of days time.  I suppose you could if the meeting date was part of the unique key but I suspect that it's not designed that way.
So the new system is significant improve as it allows the TAB to offer betting on more than one TAB code at the same time.  
Yet even though it is an improvement, this has been a negative thread.  I'm not defending the things they've got wrong but simply pointing out that even a major improvement leads to criticism because fundamentally people don't necessarily understand.

Criticism of the numbering system simply undermines any legitimate criticisms of the site.  It's simply criticism for criticism sake - and with respect, a lack of understanding and a reluctance to accept change.
I agree the old numbering system such as 201 was easy - on any given date, that would be meeting 2 race 1.  However, under that system you can't bet on meeting 2 today and meeting 2 in a couple of days time.  I suppose you could if the meeting date was part of the unique key but I suspect that it's not designed that way.
So the new system is significant improve as it allows the TAB to offer betting on more than one TAB code at the same time.  
Yet even though it is an improvement, this has been a negative thread.  I'm not defending the things they've got wrong but simply pointing out that even a major improvement leads to criticism because fundamentally people don't necessarily understand.

Not just any race - there's a group one in France for 2yo over 2000m - Critérium de Saint-Cloud.

Anyone else think it is ironic that a politician that has spent his entire career fighting against foreign control of assets  is now leading the charge to outsource the TAB?

It's far from optimal but the issue with the extended form looks like it's a browser compatibility issue.  On your desktop, if you try a browser like Chrome it should work - I assume you're using a Microsoft browser?  It also explains why it works on your phone.
At one stage, the countdown timer was displaying differently for different browsers so it looks like there's more than one issue with browser compatibility.

It's far from optimal but the issue with the extended form looks like it's a browser compatibility issue.  On your desktop, if you try a browser like Chrome it should work - I assume you're using a Microsoft browser?  It also explains why it works on your phone.
At one stage, the countdown timer was displaying differently for different browsers so it looks like there's more than one issue with browser compatibility.

It's far from optimal but the issue with the extended form looks like it's a browser compatibility issue.  On your desktop, if you try a browser like Chrome it should work - I assume you're using a Microsoft browser?  It also explains why it works on your phone.
At one stage, the countdown timer was displaying differently for different browsers so it looks like there's more than one issue with browser compatibility.

Not sure what you mean in the first sentence re logic but I think we agree that it's impossible to draw any conclusions based on the number of races so far.  However, it would be interesting to see what would happen with a larger pool.
As the stats tell us, box speed wins greyhound races.  The first dog to the first bend has a significant advantage in pretty much all races.
It would be interesting to see what criteria GRNZ is using to measure the success of the trial.
As has been pointed out, i think 6 dog fields are used in the UK and Ireland and that doesn't seem to have affected punting.  That said, it was noticeable with the smaller fields that you had to adjust your view of what was value etc

I have just read the Wanganui statement to it's members regarding changes to trial rules following a court case involving Deb Edlin..
What an immature, pathetic response to the courts correct decision that the club had every chance to avoid. Does the club not know or respect the fact that we live in an era where there are health and safety laws that must be worked within.. The club clearly failed in it's responsibilities and not just in the case of Deb Edlin, it had other cases that it had refused to acknowledge, preferring to either bury their collective heads in the sand or arrogantly assume they were above the law. The association has made big noises in recent years about clubs having  liability insurance for these very instances. Maybe they should have run courses on how to avoid using it.
        The club had over 18 months deal with the issue but not only did they not have the sense  to come to an agreement with Deb, they still had not addressed the cause of the incident to prevent it happening again. That alone is a serious breach of the H&S act.
   GRNZ must look at themselves over this situation as well because it afforded the club the forlorn chance to avoid prosecution by hiding behind rules that are not worth the paper they are written on. The rules must be amended or removed as they impeach on our human rights and Debs case will used as precedent in the future.
To  try and make life as difficult as possible for the rest of the members and infer it is a result of Debs action ( an actio0n NZ law has deemed to be correct) smacks of a severe case of bad losers syndrome and a very childish attempt at that.
Shame on you Wanganui. The correct response would have been a public apology to Deb and Glen and a notification on how it will prevent this happening again in the future
Most of us as members having been  presented with the same circumstances as Deb would  probably have had a moan to the club, posted on here and given up, but Deb is a strong intelligent person whose interests were very probably in working for the good of the rest of us and the safety of the dogs rather than any benefit for herself. I respect her for that and congratulate her on her efforts
 
Mike Martin

The Fixed Odds issue is now fixed :-) Thanks to NZRB staff for the assistance.

I believe the scratchings are listed at the end of each field.
I, too, have had some frustrations but that does not mean this new system is worse than the old.
Any change is frustrating especially when there has been so little change for so long.
I think it not unreasonable to give it time - and time  for us also to learn to navigate our way through the system.