I started off with the idea that this would be a short and sweet installment of the Corner, but little did I know once I got started that I would be unable to finish it in 1 or 2, so today will be an introduction to the use of angles and some definitions, and next week, we’ll get into it in more depth.

Much is made about the use of angles in handicapping, both pro and con. Some people ask me if I ever use them, and the answer is "all the time." Then they will say, "but Steve, didn’t you say that SHAPE is the most important factor? How can you be interested in shape and use angles all the time?" The answer lies in my definition of "angle". The dictionary defines angle as "An aspect, as of a problem, seen from a specific point of view." To me, it means approaching a problem, such as the handicapping of a race, with a certain direction or approach. So any method of handicapping is, really, an angle or collection of angles. So shape itself is a point of view, and so it is indeed an angle.

When I think of the term "using and angle’ it means emphasizing one particular aspect of the handicapping equation above all others. It means over-weighting or giving more emphasis to one aspect than it would ordinarily get. I’m constantly doing this with shape - because of my ability to make fine distinctions in this area, I give this factor more weight than it traditionally gets. The tricky part of over-weighting any particular factor is that you do not know exactly whether the upcoming race action will also put a premium on that factor.

So in my view, any time you give substantially more weight to any one factor than you ordinarily would, you are using it as an angle. Shape is not really an angle for me because I rely so heavily on it day in -day out. Track bias can also be an "angle’ when it is heavily emphasized. So can fractional analysis. Of course, when you pick one of these areas to focus in on heavily, you are putting a lot at stake and if you are wrong, you are going to be very wrong. Heavy reliance on angles generally leads to much more variable results - periods of extremely hot play and periods of extremely cold play. This is the natural result of the ebb and flow of random events - when they come together in a certain way, a certain angle may appear to be a magic bullet. When events come together in other ways, the same angle can seem like an anemic and powerless tool. Reliance on angles reduces consistency.

If there is one angle, however, than you can emphasize with the most consistency, however, it is the SHAPE angle. Limiting bets to only those horses who are in shape will provide the highest level of profits and more consistency than any other angle.

To most people, an angle is a magic bullet - a short cut - to picking winners. Most people want a factor that can be easily pulled right off the program information with little or no effort which will provide them with a winning bet. To most people, angles are crutches, and ultimately are detrimental to both handicapping skill and financial results. Much like crutches which you use to help you walk when you are injured, if you keep using them the other muscles in your leg start to atrophy and weaken. When you consistently look for and rely on quick fixes or angles, your other handicapping muscles atrophy and weaken to the point that when your particular angle goes cold or out of sync, you have no other weapons in your arsenal to use - your other handicapping muscles have become so weak and are virtually useless.

This happens to me in the area of "chart reading". I have noticed that when I get so tuned into looking at nothing but charts, that my "program-reading" skills deteriorate. So much so that if I find myself looking at a program from a track the horses of which I am not already familiar, with nothing but a program, I can barely read the damned thing! The only horses I can come up with are the ones that stick out like sore thumbs like all the other dopes who handicap off the program. I noticed an example of this happening to me not too long ago, on an evening when my wife was having company and I wanted out of the house, so I went to the Meadowlands for simulcasting - I went their ready with Windsor and Balmoral, but they weren’t showing them - so I was stuck there trying to kill an evening looking at programs from Northfield, Maywood and Pompano and I could barely distinguish one horse from the other.

In short - most people want an angle to be one easy fact that they can use to the exclusion of all others which will pick a winner. The more healthy approach is to consider them as part of the equation and, when the circumstances are right, notice aspects to overweight, but NEVER to the exclusion of other factors.

I’ve grouped angles into some general categories:

Next week, I’ll start with a listing of these various angles and start taking an objective look at some of the more popular ones, as well as some pet ones of mine which may be totally new to many of you. Many of mine are merely specific portions of my overall handicapping theory, but might be very helpful to many of you in piecemeal fashion as well.

IN THE MEANTIME, PLEASE EMAIL ME YOUR FAVORITE ANGLE so that I can make sure we have included the ones that our readers want to hear about. State what the angle is precisely and give a simple example of how you use it. You might wish to include a sentence describing why you feel this angle is productive.

Until then……….