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

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?

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

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.

"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".

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.

"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?

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.