Numbers Are Only Part of the Story

By: Ray Taulbot

The Sprint Switch Angle: A Case Study

Of all the old bromides about racing, the one we like best is: "You can beat the races

if you can beat the

 price." We would much rather have one winner in ten at $40 than to be a

self-styled super-handicapper

who picked 40 percent winners at an average $7 payoff. The difference in profit margin

 is just basic

 arithmetic. The catch is that the player must have the patience to wait for

openings and the fortitude to

swallow losses while waiting for the big winner.

In previous articles we have explained that racing angles can be roughly divided into

two groups:

1. Performance angles; that is, angles that deal exclusively with the manner in

 which a horse performs

just prior to a winning effort.

2. Trainer angles, which,of course, have to do with the manner in which trainers

tend to work in order to

get a worthwhile price on horses that are fit and ready.

There are, of course, angles which comprise both of these general features, and it is

 one of these

combination "performance-trainer" angles with which we shall deal in this article under

 the heading

 of the "sprint switch" angle.

The turf reader should understandthat doing a capable job of handicapping enhances

the value of any

 racing angle.This is true because angles are necessarily mechanical and horses are not

 machines.

 Secondly, all angles, like all factors in a race, are closely related to many

 other elements.

For example, a hard, over-taxing race of recent date could destroy the winning power

of the very

strongest racing angle. Likewise, the class or current condition factor, or both, can

 strengthen or weaken the

 effectiveness of any angle. Thus, it is clear that the racing fan who is capable of

evaluating a racing angle

 on the basis of the factors to whichit is closely related, will derive better results

than those who make only

mechanical use of the same angle.

In a previous column, we dealt with a horse making the route switch in distance;

this time we shall detail the

 sprint switch in distance. Before advancing any further, however, we want to

repeat a portion of our other

 article because of its direct bearing on our discussion this month:

"A mistake commonly made by some fans when considering the switch-in-distance

 angle has to do with the time factor. When the switch is from a sprint to a

route, and then back to a sprint,the final time in which the route race is run

 has little meaning. We all know that the pace of a sprint race

 over a fast track usually results in a faster early pace than does a route race run under the

same conditions."

Remember, the route race is for conditioning purposes, because the trainer has

 evidently decided that

his sprinter needs more "legging up." Hence an easy distance race is in order.

This brings us to that all-important date factor. Everyone who knows anything about

 racing surelyrealizes that the more recently a horse ran its last race the more likely it is

to improve today, provided its last race was not a taxing effort that tended to dull, rather than sharpen, the horse’s current condition.

The date factors apply to cheap claimers. Higher-price claimers (entered for

$25,000 or more) and

horses entered in allowances or other non-claiming events can qualify with more

 relaxed date rules.

We have found, however, that it doesn’t pay to back selections — especially cheap

claimers — at less

 than3–1.

Following are the angle rules:

1. The horse’s last race must have been a route run within 15 days for cheap

claimers, 30 days for

high-price claimers and non-claimers. It must be switching to a sprint today.

2. The horse’s next-to-last race must have been run within the past 30 days for cheap

claimers, 50 days for high-price claimers and non-claimers.

3. In its next-to-last race, a sprint, the horse must have been leading or running

within one length of the

leader at the stretch call and finished in the money.

4. The horse’s most recent race must have been an easy effort going a distance.

5. Prefer a horse that has turned in at least one sharp workout at a date later than

 its last race. If no workout

since then is evident, demand at least 4–1.

_____________

June 29, 2002 - Race 3 BelmontPark

Seven Furlongs

Maiden Special Weight

Unanimous Decisionc.3

7Jun02-9 Bel fst 1 1/4 Md Sp Wt 4 33 522½ 2.75

17May02-4 Bel fst 11/16 Md Sp Wt

1 1 1 21½ 34.50

______________

We are reproducing the past performances of Unanimous Decision in the third

race at Belmont Park onJune 29, 2002.

Strictly speaking, the colt’s penultimate race was not a sprint, but since he was leading

 all the way to the stretch call going around one turn, this was equivalent to winning

 aseven-furlong race, a potent argument for following the intent if not the letter

of Rule 3.

Note that he ran in a much longer route of 1¼ miles in his top race, beaten by

22½ lengths in an easy effort as required by Rule 4.

As a non-claimer, he had run within 30 and 50 days in his top two races as required

by Rule 1.

When switched to a sprint racetoday he returned a $25.60 payoff enhanced by the

fact that he was the only qualifier in today’s race.

Look for the sprint switch angle in future racesand you should receive some

nice payoffs.