Quirin on form --- 25 years later?

[Shacopate]

In 1979, Dr. Quirin wrote one of the most influencial handicapping books ever with "Winning at the Races: Computer discoveries in thoroughbred handicapping."

Chapters 6-11 contained about 40 pages of theories and stats that focused strickly on form.

How well do these concepts hold up today? I know that the 3rd race off layoff is still and popular and chapter 7; about recent action is probably outdated, but what about the others?

Does anyone have stats on how well these form concepts work today, similar to what Dr. Quirin compiled in 1979?

The book is a real treat to read if you haven't already, it introduced Quirin Speed Points, impact values, earnings based class. And some useful form angles such as failures, "bid-hung", "the big win", "taxing-stretch drive", "Z-pattern", "surprise early-speed", and "last race good". It's also filled with insight on making your own figs and variants.

Of course, his is also known for his race shapes and easy-to-assemble pace figs.

[socantra]

Mike Nunamaker's Modern Impact Values revisits most of the same material in 1996, in the same format. Recency has definitely diminished in importance, and most of the factors have flattened out considerably in the "$NET" category, probably largely due to the impact of Quiren's work itself.

I'm sure some of the database handicappers here would be happy to run individual queries for you.

socantra...

[cj]

I still find 3d (and 4th) off the layoff to be very potent. It certainly isn't a stand alone factor, but it should not be ignored either.

[orlando]

hello gents, just stop by to say that impact values were first introduced to thoroughbred racing in 1974 by MR.Frederick S. Davis and not by Dr.quirin,also his percentages and probabilities method is still produceing a good ROI .The procedures offered were tested in 3 series of races totalling more than 1000 races at that time 1974 that was a fantastic advancement as per Mr.Tom Ainslie who wrote the introduction. I am still useing it and it makes money folks, by the way there is a MR. who has programed the method and it showed a poss+ ROI he does not mention the ROI number but it wins at a rate of 23-24%.Thank you pace advantage for this forum I am glad to be a member. orlando :cool:

[Dave Schwartz]

Orlando,

I found that Fred Davis' work was excellent. Many of his factors still perform well today.

However, I did test his IV approach using the overlay concept he outlined in his booklet extensively some years ago with absolutely dismal results.

I would be interested in seeing some workouts of such an approach. My software can, in fact, duplicate the Davis approach (i.e. build an IV table, normalize to a 100% line, bet the overlays) rather easily.

I admit that I did not use the DRF speed rating but rather speed numbers derived directly from the download (at the time, ITS). But I never found those numbers to be poor. IN fact, just the opposite.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[orlando]

Dave, I must at this time direct you to Mr. Nunamaker site as he is the Mr . I was talking about. I myself us the method I a variety of ways one succesfull way is a two horse play consept on top 2 basic rateing,looking for 3/1-4/1 play or better.However Dave your program sounds something I would like to look in to (a wise man investigates what fools takes for granted).what is your web site address Dave?

[Shacopate]

Thank you MR Orlando,

For your correction on when impact values were first introduced.

[Dave Schwartz]

Orlando,

We can be found here: http://www.horsestreet.com/


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[orlando]

hello Mr. Shacopate theres no need for the MR.before Orlando the reason I replied to your thread because its correct to give every man his dues. So if i came of strong please except my apologies Orlando :(

[Shacopate]

Orlando,

Welcome to the board.

No need for an apology. My post wasn't accurately stated; I'm sure that Quirin isn't the father of most of the angles I mentioned, but he laid out some pretty good samples on them and I thought some database guys might have up-to-date stats.

Without a database to back it up, my quess is that the form angles will perform at a slightly lesser ROI than in 1979. Of course, as CJ mentioned, not many angles (or any) can stand alone.

But, they can be used to upgrade a dangerous non-contender or be used to seperate horses. Or in some cases, find the longshot that alot of people are scratching their heads over after the race.

The thing I like is that they are based on condition. The recency and consistency angles are obviously outdated. But the "moves within the race angles" can point to some good prices when combined with other handicapping factors.

The book is a fun read, and in my opinion, a classic!

[Overlay]

My experience with Quirin's data has been that some individual factors may have lost pari-mutuel value as win bets when considered by themselves and when played at all odds ranges, but they still retain usefulness in combination, or when employed as a means of gauging winning probability, so that you can lay off horses that have been bet down too low. (This is particularly true if you supplement Quirin's findings with Nunamaker's subsequent updating of his research.) I have also found that positive handicapping factors have a longer "shelf life" than negative ones. Negative factors may change with time. (For example, as mentioned, lack of recent activity is not as strong a negative element it used to be.) But positive signs such as early speed, sharp recent activity, and overall winning consistency have remained valid. Winning at the Races and Modern Impact Values are still the titles I always turn to first when I start evaluating a new angle or system.

[Shacopate]

Overlay,

Thanks for the response on Quirins work. Much appreaciated.

How would you rate "Last Race Good" (positive) and "Failures"
(negative) today?

I definitely need to check out Nunamaker. As many have suggested.

[Dave Schwartz]

Shacopate,

We have both of those factors in our database and I can tell you that they are backwards to the book.

I ran these not too long ago. From memory...

The "good race" is only strong for a finish of 1st or 2nd or very close to 1st. In other words, a 3rd outside of about 1/2 length is just "average."

And the "failure" angle actually improved the ROI significantly! Two failures was typically better. Of course, it helps if the animal is entered at the same level today.


Dave Schwartz

[Overlay]

My data shows "last race good" (with "good" being according to Quirin's original definition, including third-place finishes) as having an impact value of 1.40 for all horses. "Last race not good" has an impact value of .77. Although Quirin found that a failure was a more significant negative indicator than a "bad" (i.e., not "good") race, the failure concept has never been that useful to me, since Quirin gave so many possible excuses for not counting a "bad" race as a failure. (Nunamaker also did not include any data on "failures" in his study.) I show the following impact values for the number of "good" races a horse has run in its last three starts:

0 0.61
1 0.99
2 1.32
3 1.66

[Overlay]

By the way, I see that, as a result of putting up that last post, I've now changed from an "Apprentice" to a "Journeyman". Since I've lost my bug, does that mean I'm going to gain five pounds? (And here I've been congratulating myself for having made it through Thanksgiving with the same pants size!)

[BillW]

Originally posted by Overlay
By the way, I see that, as a result of putting up that last post, I've now changed from an "Apprentice" to a "Journeyman". Since I've lost my bug, does that mean I'm going to gain five pounds? (And here I've been congratulating myself for having made it through Thanksgiving with the same pants size!)

That field can be changed by the user. If you feel yourself getting too depressed, go into your profile and change it back :D

Bill