When I first began experimenting with this betting concept I was getting a far higher percentage of losers than I get today. Each time one of my selections finished out of a place I would spend some time investigating the reason for the horse failing to perform as expected, a pattern began to emerge.
 
On almost every occasion I discovered a risk factor that the experts and the betting public were either unaware of or, as was most often the case, were prepared to overlook.
 
On some occasions the horse had drawn wide at the barrier. Other times I discovered that the horse had not raced for several weeks or that an inexperienced apprntice jockey had been engaged to claim a weight allowance. Sometimes it would be that the distance of the race was too long or too short for the horse at that particular stage of its preperation, or perhaps that the track conditions on the day were not favorable.
 
Track conditions, in particular, were a mojor risk factor. Most of the newspaper and form guide tipsters had to make their weekend selections on the Thursday before and could only assume that certain track conditions would prevail for the following Saturday. If in the meantime the weather changed dramatically and the track surface deteriorated from say, firm to heavy, I am sure most of the tipsters would have liked to reasses their published preferences for the day. But, of course, they could not.
 
It became clear that horses which carried a risk factor had to be eliminated from contention. I therefore set about developing a set of conditions which I would apply to each horse on my short list before it was eligible for investment. On the odd occasion when I thought I could "bend" the rules a little I usually ended up paying the price. I realised that I needed to be far more disciplined, that these rules had to be absolute and unconditional and I began thinking of them as "laws" which were to be obeyed. If I broke a law then I knew that I risked paying the penalty.