Regarding today's race I wrote:

"None of the other last start winners in the race can match it on paper. The best of them is #4 Youthful, but it fails on average prizewinnings. (But Past Blast's aren't that flash.)"

With hindsight the problem was here, wasn't it? In fact, as Placegetter points out, Youthful met all the criteria so Past Blast was not way ahead on paper. And average prizewinnings was no basis for ruling Youthful out in favour of Past Blast - ordinary prizewinnings too. I ignored the rule:

"A selection MUST have a strong prizewinning percentage to match its recent form."

Also reckon I failed on:

"Where there are several last start winners, read their detailed form. Which ran the better last race in times and lengths,at which track, carrying what weight? Compare and rate them."

Once I eliminated Youthful on prizewinnings I looked no further.

Another point:

"However, four last start winners in 14. A question mark..."

Four last start wiunners in fourteen runners. Too many. Tighten this parameter I think. A general failing this time was underestimating the last start winners. A sober assessment of the calibre of the competition should have led to a NO BET decision.

And finally:

"The magic ingredient is: DISCIPLINE. Chase a perfect strike rate. 100%. Bet as if your life depended on it and as if an out is the end of the world."

Failed miserably here. I looked at the race. Checked it out. And didn't like it. Didn't like the weight and the other last start winners. I should have listened to my own advice and rules. There were too many question marks against Past Blast. It came through the selection process but unconvincingly. For a selection you have to be CONVINCED.

I wasn't convinced, but I really wanted to try it out...

An undisciplined bet. That's the main reason I lost.

Hermes