"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?