Statistical Certainties

[Sportz]

This probably won't be popular with people who can't help themselves and like to have lots of bets all over the place. But if you want to cut down on bets and increase your strike rate and profit, then you could think about sticking to what I call "Statistical Centainties". By that, I mean matches or events, that going by past results and head to head records, can only really go one way. Each year, there are several games/events that I pick out as 'statistical certainties' and these are the ones I like to concentrate on the most. The thing with these bets is that sometimes the price is quite a bit more than you'd expect. Last night was a good example. The Australian rugby team haven't beaten Sth Africa at Ellis Park since 1963!!! They simply can't win there. Yet, they were favourites and you could get $2.00+ on Sth Africa!!! Why??? As a punter, this was just brilliant value!

Here's some other examples from this year:

AFL - West Coast to beat Brisbane. In recent years, West Coast have totally had the measure of Brisbane. Even when Brisbane were the top team and West Coast were just a fringe top 8 side, they still beat the Lions. This year, the roles are reversed, so why should the Lions win this year? And the Gabba holds no fears for West Coast, so they were just as good a thing to win there as at Subiaco.

R.League - NSW to beat Qld in 2nd S.O.O in Sydney. Qld have NEVER beaten NSW at Stadium Australia. Why should they start this year??? $1.50 was great value. I will continue to back NSW at Stadium Australia until Qld can somehow learn how to win there. Can't see it happening soon.

Wimbledon - Federer to win. Thought he was as close as you're possibly going to get to a certainty in a Grand Slam and the $1.60-$1.65 which was available was a great price. He has proven to be virtually unbeatable on grass and I reckon he will challenge Sampras's record.

Wimbledon - Federer to beat Hewitt. Hewitt simply CAN NOT beat Federer. Roger had won their previous 7 matches, yet there were still some people who thought Hewitt could win this. He was no chance. $1.20 was available before the match and that was a luxury.

British Open - Tiger Woods to finish top10/top5. I wouldn't be so bold as to suggest that Tiger was a certainty to win the event, but he was always going to go close. A first and a second at the two previous majors this year and consistent top 5 form on the PGA tour, playing a course that suited him where he'd won by 8 shots the last time. Sportingbet offered $1.33 on him finishing in the top10 which was a wonderful price, and $1.70-$1.75 was generally available about him making the top5, again great value in my books.

There's been a few other examples that people could look at throughout the year for value. Like Essendon to beat Collingwood. Prior to this year, the Bombers had won 11 of the past 13 matches between the two. Now it's 13 of the past 15.

[knowledge]

i agree with u my mate. u make a very good case. are u a lawyer by profession? very good info there.

I will pay more attention to things like this in future.

Sometimes odds are just not worth backing though, like 1.01-1.10. I'd rather back a 4/1 tennis player with a stake 10 times smaller.

[discipline pays]

Make a lot of sense,however this year we have seen some "certs" rolled ,

eg australia/bangladesh - but doubtful you would have snapped up 1.01 anyway!!

and too many upsets in afl to talk about.

An extension of this theory would be the use of betfair. For example you could have backed woods at 4.50 at start of british open and then laid him at 2.00 after 2 rounds, or alternative have a gorilla on federer at the 1.90 and then lay him at 1.25 odd going into semis.Federer would have to break down to not make semis at moment.


I am seriously thinking of backing west coast for flag, expect 3.00 ish after losing to sydney for maybe a couple large and then laying them before prelim finals, expect them to be 2.30 ish .

as always discipline is the key !!! and most of us dont have enough !!!

[Sportz]

Yeah, I'd certainly never even think about taking $1.01, DP. Anybody who lost money backing Australia that day, got all they deserved. I reckon $1.15-$1.20 should be the minimum price for a single bet, but I prefer to wait for those at $1.40+.

By the way, the Australian cricket team was pretty much a 'statistical certainty' against England in the first test, but I actually use a different betting strategy when it comes to Cricket, so I'm not counting that one. Australia simply do not lose at Lords!

[goldmember]

sportz, i also think that the swans stats against the w/coast in sydney are a standout, 10/13 at the S.C.G, [plus the E/F last year at stadium aust by 41], couldnt believe it when the prices went up they they were not fav's,not that my wallet is complaining as i had them rated @ $1.65.

[Sportz]

Exactly. That was a good example of what I'm talking about. West Coast hadn't won at the SCG for 6 years. Now, when a team has won 15/16 so far this year, you certainly can't say their opponents are any sure things, but I think the Swans were very good value at their opening price.

[Jack Daniels]

Statistical certainties are what prompted me to have a multi bet on the weekend.

Dragons 1-12 to beat Sharks at Oki Jubilee - Sharks haven't won there in over 6 years. 3.35
x
Swans 1-39.5 to beat West Coast at the SCG - As stated above. 2.35
x
Rossi to win Moto GP at a rain soaked Donnington - Rarely ever loses and always goes well in the wet. 1.35

Odds: $10.62

It was a bit of a gamble with the margin bets on the first two. But in the end they paid off and at 10/1 I was very happy.

I was going to throw in the Ashes result. But decided against it given the weather that was bucketing down in England. I couldn't have stood it if I had lost the bet due to a draw to England due to bad weather.

[goldmember]

JD,i know we can find a lot of stat cert's [to a lesser extent],but i think sportz was picking out more high profile one's on the world stage, but thats not to say we cant profit on the others,every week on the footy we will find something,next week will be no different,Well, the Roosters havent lost 4 straight since early 2002, sadly i think they will equal it next week against the dragons, and 5 straight since 2001, when they play the panthers[what a non existent game that will be]

[goldmember]

I know there going better than their opposition at the momemt, but how would you like to take $1.25 - $1.35 St Geoge against the Roosters, in their last 9 games :

the saints have:

lost by 8
draw
lost by 13
lost by 4
lost by 16
won by 4
lost by 3
lost by 4
won by 2
?

[Floydyboy]

How about Lance Armstrong being on the cover of TIME magazine

[Sportz]

He's another good example. Has there ever been a bigger certainty than Armstrong winning the Tour this year?

Perhaps, him winning it last year or the year before that.....

[karla909]

Great post Sportz.

Got us all thinking that is for sure. As you know I make my tennis predictions based on statistics and hopefully statistical certanties.

I think your theory works well in single events like AFL or a tennis match. However in events that take 5 days (cricket) or 2 weeks (Wimbeldon) have too many extra factors other than the actual sporting event. (My opinion only - no stats to back this up).

For example -rain is a factor in cricket and tennis players are injury prone or catch the flu.

Maybe we should keep this forum open and when an event happens that is a "statistical certainty" we could build a list.

Ps Whats the stats on the Wallabies in the next match?

Karla

[Sportz]

Not very good. I haven't checked out Australia's record at this week's venue yet, but they've only won 1 of the last 11 tests in SA. I would suggest that they are a better chance of winning this week than they were last week. However, I'll have to look at it a bit more and see what the odds are.

[Mr J]

I don't like going by h2h. Bookies know that's how squares think. The public places too much emphasis on head 2 head, and not the reasons why that head 2 head record is the way it is. The bookies usually always have the reasons behind the h2h factored in anyway. H2H can reflect an advantage one side has over another, but h2h itself isn't an advantage (unless you're hewitt vs federer).

[Sportz]

If the bookies and punters had gone by the records, South Africa should have been no more than $1.40 in my opinion. A price of $2.00+ was a definite advantage.

[Oz]

tell me who to put all my money on and ill do it !!

rita last night on big brother was a guarantee to go

i had 1400 on her :O

[Sportz]

Yeah, but she was only $1.05 or something, wasn't she?

[Oz]

yeh she was

[karla909]

Don't know if this qualifes as a "statistical certainity" but I'll state it anyway.


In the tennis tournament in LA, this week, when the #1 seed has won his first round match, he has also won his second round match .
Since 1978 the #1 seed has won 24 of 26 first round matches and won all 24 of the second round.

24 from 24 = 100%

Go Andre

[Sportz]

Wow! That's some stat. He's got a lot of weight on his shoulders now. :)

[punter57]

Mr J has summed up my thoughts on all this. I will not bet on statistical certainties unless there is an accompanying explaination of what CAUSES the certainty. And even then, NOT if they're favourites. This type of thing (identifying apparent "trends" after the event) is the whole basis of charlatan system sellers isn't it?? This is in no way to infer that anyone here is one of them!!!
My old aunt Gussy assures me that the Bowen Cup (where's that??) is ALWAYS won by a grey horse whose jockey wears a pink cap. Checking this out, let's say I discover it to be true for the past ten years. Question; should I take Grey Lightening at ANY ODDS since HIS hoop does indeed wear a pink cap? Maybe....
If it turns out that every horse is grey (ie it's GREYS ONLY) AND the best trainer has pink caps on his three entries VERY MAYBE!! Regardless, I will consider the others AND THE PRICES
Likewise, if Roddick has a 100% record against Ginepri (6-0; 5 in straight sets;the only set dropped IN THE VERY FIRST ENCOUNTER,5 years ago before Roddick became "a star"...he's unbeatable!!!!) Should I have taken the $12 available on Ginepri turning it around last week in the RCA Tourney. Or was $1.05 justified and just "money for jam" on Andy?? Well, I reckon the $1200 FEELS better than the lost $100 on THAT "statistical certainty". Of course,as with Sth Africa, if some bookie offerred reversed odds I would snap them up EVERY TIME.
When Australia 2 was 3-1 down in 1983 and no-one had rolled the yanks in 122 years should I have put my hundred on the Americans at 100-1 ON? Please advise me!!! Well? Or what about Thorpie at 500-1 ON to qualify in the trials of the 400m last year? OR (we won't mention $1.12 for Paris as the Olympic City) as Steven Bradbury rounds the bend in last place at the Winter Olympics should I have snapped up the 200-1 against EVERYONE FALLING OVER (except him, of course)..
Anyway, I hope everyone appreciates that I am not pooh-poohing the concept of some things being MUCH MORE PROBABLE than others but, rather, adding the "price" qualifier to "the stats".Cheers.
P.S. What did you do with Roddick, K909? Could Hewitt be the next Ginepri when he takes on Federer in New York???

[Sportz]

If you read what I said, you would see that I'm looking for comparitive value. I'm not talking about idiotic prices like $1.01. I wouldn't have even thought of making any of those ridiculous losing bets you mentioned. Seriously, anybody that consistently takes less than $1.15-$1.20 about anything is taking a big risk. I usually look for a minimum of $1.40 about my bets, but I will go lower if I'm extremely confident. Like Federer against Hewitt at Wimbledon. Quite simply, Hewitt was no chance of winning that match. As for your example of Roddick, it sounds like it wasn't a very big tournament. I know we have some Tennis experts on here who bet every week of the year, but I prefer to wait for the real big stuff where the form is more reliable, so I wouldn't have even looked at that match anyway.

[punter57]

Sportz. If Hewitt had've been 1 million to one (imagine!) you still would've sat on your hands??? Do you believe Hewitt will never beat Federer again (or just never again on grass)? It appears that until Hewitt wins, HE CAN"T WIN. Hmmmmm. Let's go back to the good old days.
It's the second round at Wimbledon and one of the finest grass-courters ever, defending and two-time champion (very easily), only 19 and nothing but improvement ahead (the future of tennis,no less), $1.40 before the tournament (even shorter than Fedex), facing a journeyman Aussie, ranked about 150 in the world, who the carrot-top has already trashed a few times. This young Deutscher has NEVER lost on grass. Should I put my dough on Becker or Peter Doohan?? Is it a question of price, or of stats, or what?
Another thing. What you haven't let on about is, since you won't bet $1.35 on the certainty, WILL you then back the UNcertainty? Ever? Never? That is surely far more interesting and potentially much more profitable, if you/we can get it right,isn't it?. Cheers and hoping to hear more about this last. P57

[Sportz]

Geez, that was way back in 1987 wasn't it? I wasn't even betting on sport way back then. In any case, I reckon that Becker would probably have been about $1.02 for that match or something like that. Again, anybody that backed him at those odds, got what they deserved.

No, I simply don't think Hewitt will beat Federer in any match of importance in the near future.

And if I think a certain player/team is 'unbeatable' but I don't like the odds, I ignore the event. I don't go looking for the outsider unless I genuinely think they can win.

[racingnovice]

I agree with Sportz and Why dont we start a new tipping thread with sporting certs? Would be a good thread and hopefully everyone can make some $'s.

[Sportz]

Wouldn't want to put the moz on some of our bets though. :o

[punter57]

Glad you answered so promptly Sportz. And there our paths diverge.
Since the bookies only cheer when unfancied competitors/horses come in (the more unfancied the louder the cheer) because the favs are OVERRATED and OVERBET, then I much prefer to be one of the one's cheering too, by being ON the unfancied one's. After all, if the average bookie is driving his Jag home from the track or office while the average punters (ie fav supporters) are taking the bus, then the bookies must be doing something right. I suspect that "something" is in getting punters to back favs or, alternately, scaring us away completely by making us believe the fav is "unbeatable" (via the odds).
To counter this, I reckon you have to say "These odds are TOO SHORT" at some point and then accept the unmistakable implication that the non-fav is TOO LONG, no matter our "feeling" of discomfort. Whether the horses, sportsbetting, business,the real estate market or the stock exchange, going against the crowd has always been the secret to "extraordinary" profit and will ever be thus. You (or I) will have to be right 25 to 30 times (on favs at $1.40 or $1.50) to equal one Ginepri over Roddick and IF being a minor tourney WAS the key (as you suggest) then why not RUN WITH THAT??? Cheers
P.S. Sportz, we could discuss Sampras getting rolled by Krajicek,or Rafter by Ivanisevic if you prefer more recent. Or Sharapova by V. Williams three weeks ago, if you want MAJOR matches and MAJOR Upsets within "living memory".

[Sportz]

I don't think Venus Williams was really such a big upset. I actually had a small bet on Williams in that match because on form I thought she in fact deserved to be a slight favourite.

It's not the case that I never bet on outsiders. I just have to genuinely think the outsider has a good chance of winning, not simply bet on them because they're a big price.

[Mr J]

I don't think tennis is a good sport to bet "statistical certainties anyway. The result totally depends on the form of an individual, and no-one is 100% every match.

I would take the all blacks vs namibia in a world cup for $1.01 though, simply because the all blacks will never lose a match, unless they had several players redcarded. Too much skill and depth (if a couple of players have a bad day it won't make much of a difference). The price would be shorter for this game though.

"Statistical certainties" are one way bookies make their profit. Ok, sure, most of these bets are something silly like $1.05, but bookies use this reasoning to their advantage. They know the public will always overvalue these sorts of trends, and will fade these lines. If that bet is a good bet, it's definately not because of any super statistic. Your've got to look at why that statistic is the way it is, and not just blindly follow the statistic. Once you understand the causes behind a statistic and can judge their influence on the current match, then you can decide whether the bet is value or not.

[punter57]

This is the second time I'll be saying I agree with Mr J, on this thread. There is no such thing as a certainty, really, BUT it is all a question of price anyway. Roger Federer has a howling argument with his girl one morning and she storms out on him. Two hours later he's playing Hewitt and instead of concentrating 100% it's only 97%.Meanwhile Hewitt has been working on his game and that's the raging upset we've been waiting for (at $10 Hewitt)!! How to know any of this??? I know this CAN'T happen but let's imagine even Federer is human!!!!
Regardless of how or why the upset happens I still reckon that if you find the fav to be too short to bet you MUST bet the other side (in two team/player/horse battles) since the clear conclusion has to be that you are getting OVERS there. Anyone else thinking like this???

[iamcool]

Not me P57,

For me form, class, depth or strength, call it what you like wins every time. Sure there are circumstances where i will not back the favourite but that is because by my assessment the favourites are undeserving for some reason.

Would you have backed the Brisbane Lions opponents consistently over the last three years (excluding 2005) just because the price for Brisbane was too short in your estimation? If you had you would undoubtedly be out of pocket.

For me, and this is just my opinion, factors such as form or suspension/key player injuries etc are much preferable indictors of an undeserving favourite than price alone. Otherwise it's the favourite everytime.

As a much wiser person than I once said:
"Sometimes the road less travelled is less travelled for a reason."

http://forums.ozmium.com.au/images/icons/icon6.gif

[punter57]

Hi Iamcool. This thread has gone in two directions, with the original idea being that a "statistical" certainty will come through BECAUSE it always does, and regardless of current form, to boot!!! For example, that Australia always wins at Lords and always will (can this be true????). I never bet team sports, precisely because you are relying on too many players to "be right on the night".
The real danger in the idea of "Hoodoos" however is clear enough when you read Goldmembers post (#13). In that, he specifically cited the Dragons as a perennial "risk" (no matter the form) against the Roosters because their last 10 games have been losses or wafer-thin wins.Yesterday was the greatest slaughter the Roosters have endured in years AND at the hands of the Dragons!!!! So much for the predictive power of stats.
In tennis, I am always betting the non-favs (and will start a new thread on this topic shortly) as I believe upsets are ALWAYS on the cards. This means, however, waiting for "good" players to be the underestimated "outsider" (ie Hewitt versus Federer) and at long adds. It's remarkable really that Hewitt (the second best performed player of recent years) should be so definitively dismissed against ANYONE.
One of the most famous examples of this type of thing was 1956 (before my time, but proof that it has always been thus!!!) where Lew Hoad faced Ken Rosewall in the U.S. Final to complete the Grand Slam, after having beaten him in two previous GS finals and one semi that year. If anyone had "the wood" on someone it was Hoad over Rosewall (that year) AND he had motivation (completing the Slam plus a huge bonus offer to join Jack Kramers Pro circuit). Hoad was UNBACKABLE. But.....well, you can guess what happened!! Just another case of "he who dares, wins" for the courageous punter. Going against the crowd and bookies (and the stats) is the WAY!!! Cheers

[iamcool]

Hey P57,

I see what you're saying but to be sure - lol.

You back the "underdog" Hewitt as you believe that there is no such thing as a certainty - statistical or otherwise. That is to say that as Hewitt is an excellent player, it is not an absolute certainty that Federer will win as the very short odds would suggest. You do this regardless of form or past records against each other, surface etc. Hewitt at $3.50 offers value, to you the punter, whereby Federer at $1.10 would suggest Hewitt will play with no shoes or a racquet.

Am i getting closer, if so i agree in principle and would like to know, in general terms, how successful this strategy has been for you? I have never considered much less attempted to use such a strategy.

Thanks

http://forums.ozmium.com.au/images/icons/icon6.gif

[BJ]

I think the obvious point that some are trying to make here is:
If you assess an event and come up with a favourite at $1.60. The best price you can get however is $1.40.
For that reason you do not back it, because it is "not value".

Presuming that you rated it as a 62.5 % chance of winning, ($1.60), you also rated it as a 37.5% chance of losing. In a two team situation you have obviously rated both teams.
Favourite at $1.60
Underdog at $2.67

If you can get more than $2.7 on the underdog, then surely you must back it at that price. Why sit an event out because you cannot get the odds you want on the favourite. If it does not provide value then surely the other side of the coin does.....

[Sportz]

Nope.

That method might be okay for punters who have a LOT of bets and are prepared to lose many of them to achieve an overall profit. Personally, I'm selective with my betting and that idea just doesn't sit with me. I back the team that I think will win. If they aren't at a reasonable price, then I simply leave them alone. I don't go and back the other team that I don't think will win.

I rated South Africa at $1.40 last night, so was pleased with $1.72. But if I hadn't been happy with the price, I wouldn't have then gone and backed Australia when I didn't think they would win the game!!!

[Sportz]

Why sit an event out because you cannot get the odds you want on the favourite.

Sorry BJ, not sure what your punting psychology is actually like, but that sounds a bit like what a compulsive gambler might say. There are heaps of sporting events to bet on. It isn't going to hurt you to leave some alone.

[BJ]

Sorry BJ, not sure what your punting psychology is actually like, but that sounds a bit like what a compulsive gambler might say. There are heaps of sporting events to bet on. It isn't going to hurt you to leave some alone.

I am not saying bet on every event. My point is why just back favourites when they are value. I get the impression that people that rate the favourites in an event are doing just that, but not rating the opposition to a price.

Punting is all about value. You bet on events that you feel are value. If bookmakers have an event at $1.1 but you rated it to $1.5 then obviously your value lies on the other side.... If it is only a marginal call then you probably won't have value on either side.

If you don't get the value don't bet. But don't limit yourself to favourites. That is all I am trying to say..

I personally don't bet on sports. Just the gallops...

[Sportz]

I bet on a quite a few outsiders, but they have to be outsiders that are in my system or that I genuinely think can win. Western Bulldogs and Newcastle last night for example.

[BJ]

Nope.

That method might be okay for punters who have a LOT of bets and are prepared to lose many of them to achieve an overall profit. Personally, I'm selective with my betting and that idea just doesn't sit with me. I back the team that I think will win. If they aren't at a reasonable price, then I simply leave them alone. I don't go and back the other team that I don't think will win.

I rated South Africa at $1.40 last night, so was pleased with $1.72. But if I hadn't been happy with the price, I wouldn't have then gone and backed Australia when I didn't think they would win the game!!!

But you obviously gave Australia a 1/3 chance of winning the game, so you obviously gave them some chance?

[goldmember]

BJ, i do my own prices, when i rate teams and i have them shorter than the bookies, thats value to me and i'll back them if i think can win, but if i have a team at say $1.40 and good things [other team at $2.85], and the books have them at $1.30 and $3.00 i wouldnt back the other team just because their overs.Last night i had the knights specials and rated at $1.60 and i gt $2.40 !, also backed them 13+ @ $7.00

[Sportz]

so you obviously gave them some chance?

Yeah, I certainly gave them some chance, but not enough to think about backing them, even if they had been 'value'.

[BJ]

BJ, i do my own prices, when i rate teams and i have them shorter than the bookies, thats value to me and i'll back them if i think can win, but if i have a team at say $1.40 and good things [other team at $2.85], and the books have them at $1.30 and $3.00 i wouldnt back the other team just because their overs.Last night i had the knights specials and rated at $1.60 and i gt $2.40 !, also backed them 13+ @ $7.00

Now the term "good things", refers to what chance of winning? Would that not be represented in your price?

In my opinion, a good thing will not lose unless something freakish happens. A good thing would be value if you could get more than your money back.

You rate a team at $1.4 giving them a 72% chance of winning. How exactly does the term "good things" change that?

Are you saying that it will win, but you won't back it at less than $1.40?

[Mr J]

Sportz, Aus were definately where the value was (value = advantage, and you can't win longterm without it).

Box should feel lucky they got away with it.

Told you it'd be tight ;)

[Sportz]

Sorry Mr J, but for every $1 invested on Australia, punters got back ZERO. Don't think I like that sort of value. I think I'll accept the $1.72 about South Africa, thank you very much.

I can't believe you think Australia were value when they simply don't win in South Africa!!! The record now stands at one win out of their last twelve tests in SA. However tight the game was and however lucky you think the springboks were, they still ended up winning the game and that's all that matters.

[Mr J]

"they still ended up winning the game and that's all that matters."

Surprised you said that. Winning isn't what matter. When team A wins at $1.27 is that all that matters?

If winning was all that matters, then betting on every side that was more likely to win would be profitable, but it's not. Winning isn't all that matters at all. Value or Advantage is what matters.

"I can't believe you think Australia were value when they simply don't win in South Africa!!!"

Again, the flaw of "statistical certainties".

[Sportz]

What flaw? Are you trying to suggest that Australia DO win in South Africa??? The stats don't lie. 1 win out of the last 12!!! Not the sort of record that invites any sort of betting confidence at all.

Sure, the Australians went close, but I'm afraid they don't pay on that. They pay on the team which actually wins the game. That's what I meant by the win being all that matters. A close defeat is no justification for backing a team against overwhelming statistical evidence.

And South Africa weren't $1.27, were they? They were $1.72 which was great value. Give me a $1.72 winner any day compared to a $2.20 loser.

[Mr J]

"What flaw? Are you trying to suggest that Australia DO win in South Africa??? The stats don't lie"

The flaw is you relying on past h2h.

"Sure, the Australians went close, but I'm afraid they don't pay on that."

What I mean is if that game was played over and over again, Aus would win more than 50% of the time. They were the slightly superior team.

"And South Africa weren't $1.27, were they? They were $1.72 which was great value. "

So you do want to bet value after all?? You think SA were going to win that 55% of the time, I think they'd win less than 50%. Whichever team was value is just a matter of opinion. Fact is we both want to bet where the value (advantage) is, which is a good thing. I just don't agree with blindly follow 2d statistical trends like h2h.

"They pay on the team which actually wins the game. That's what I meant by the win being all that matters."

Whether you win or not doesn't matter. It's whether you had an advantage. I strongly believe betting SA at $1.70ish was poor.

"Give me a $1.72 winner any day compared to a $2.20 loser."

No, give me whichever bet had an advantage.

How often do you think SA would win that match?? Do you honestly think they were the better team?

[Sportz]

Mr J,

I rated South Africa $1.40 this week. The previous week I rated them $1.25.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree about just how big the home ground advantage is for South Africa when we go over there. In my opinion, it is HUGE!!! Australia simply does not know how to win in SA. I've bet against them year after year after year, and believe me, I'm way ahead on that score. I'll almost certainly bet against them next year too, depending on the price. (and depending on if we've got a new coach or not ;))

Put exactly the same two teams at Stadium Australia or Suncorp Stadium, and I doubt that I would even think of backing the Springboks.