The attention that courts of appeal on appeal can give to cases they know has become a "scarce resource". Applying the methodology of Law & Economics combined with samples of comparative law and dogmatic examination, this article aims to validate two hypotheses: the first one is related to the need of discretional criteria and the selection objectives of appealable cases ex post. The second, consequence of the first, is that only in this way is possible to properly manage those cases selected in the second instance. This proposal is like a third way that optimizes the appeal and proportionally distributes the negative and positive externalities of the resource. Begin by arguing that the remedy does not have as its sole objective the correction of errors that affect one of the litigants seems to be a necessary premise that infers the multiplicity of benefits for the system and for the litigant, that can provide an optimal appeal.