Horse racing, in theory, presents a very simple problem. All one needs do is determine which horse within a specific group will run the fastest going around a circle. However, like the question, "How high is up?" determining the answer is far more complex than the question would imply.

A good example of the type complexities involved is illustrated if one attempts to use "key" races as a means of spotting potential winners. One of my friends uses this method as his sole handicapping approach, and I never could comprehend the reasoning involved.

The idea seems to be to spot a race from which several winners have emerged and use this as a key. Thus, in the near future when another horse or horses from this same race is again entered one can assume it or they offer a good winning potential. This, due to fact that several horses coming off this key race have already shown superiority. The assumption is that today�s race will be of lesser quality than the key race.

What puzzles your scribe is, how does one exploit something after the fact? Certainly after a key race is run and won, one would have to know that at least two additional winners have also emerged from the event in order to regard it as a key. Anything less than an additional two would hardly be evidence that the original contest had a legitimate claim to superiority. Therefore, logically, before such a race can be tabbed at least three winners must be noted (the original and two others).

By this time not only would several weeks probably have gone by (with some horses going off form) , but it seems a bit unreasonable to expect that additional horses (probably those who were far back in original race) would continue this skein of winning ways.

However, whether this is a fair criticism or not we suggest the following as a more practical alternative. Quite frequently a race condition comes along that is over- subscribed and the track secretary sees fit to split the race and run the two halves the same day.

Or- he may simply card two races on the same day with similar conditions due to fact that there is a preponderance of a certain type horse on the grounds; maiden claimers as an example. In any case, when one spots this situation almost invariably it can be noted that in one race the contestants appear considerably superior to the other.

The benefit here is that due to the similarity in the conditions involved many of the horses from Race One will compete in the very-near future against horses from Race Two. When these occasions occur, the selector who did his homework will have a marked advantage in knowledge over those players not aware of the difference in quality of the previous races.

This writer recalls one year when the Grade Two, Long Island Handicap was split into two divisions and programmed as the 6th and 8th races on the card. Both events were at 1-1/2 miles on the turf. Ordinarily we pay scant attention to time, particularly with turf racing. In this case though we noted that the final times were only a fifth of a second apart; 2.29 3/5th and 2.29 4/5ths.

However, the times of the first 6-furlongs of these events were the key to the quality involved. The early times of race six were 25-1/5, 49-3/5, and 1.14-45. The 6-furlong times for race eight were 23-1/5, 47-25, and 1.13-1/5th. From the mile post on the fractional times were nearly identical.

We would incline to believe that the much faster early pace of race eight was the key to the superior quality of the thoroughbreds in that race. Tending to bear this out is the fact that the winner of race eight was the top scale weight who carried a theoretical 120 pounds. The winner of race six, on the other hand, was one of the two LOW weights in its field.

Additionally, in race eight the second top scale weight, who finished third, carried an actual impost of 119 pounds. In effect we�re saying that the weight assignments, and order of finish, also indicated that the overall caliber of race eight was superior to that of race six. Of course these same conditions will not prevail in every race, but should serve to provide a clue as to what to look for when attempting to establish superiority.

Looking for such situations as described in the foregoing strikes us as being a more productive way to spot "key" races. When horses from such "twin" races meet in the near future - as they definitely will - we would strongly incline toward those coming off the race which, by most standards, was obviously superior.

Visit the How To Win At Thoroughbred Racing Web site