Wallabies +12.5 at home on 17 October
Put my weekend multi on the Wallabies +12.5 last time these two met and it landed by about a bootlace, so I've got a soft spot for the start - but I wouldn't touch it at this price. All Blacks 3 from 3 with 121-70 across the Championship, that's not a side you take a double-digit start against at home unless the line's moved for a reason.
My take: 12.5 is generous for a reason and I'd want more, say 14.5, before I'd back the Wallabies with a real stake. That said, I'm not laying the All Blacks minus either, Bledisloe fixtures at home have a habit of tightening up in the second half and strangling the margin. Middle ground for me is staying off the line entirely and looking elsewhere, maybe a head-to-head with the odd try scorer leg if the price is right. Anyone taking the Wallabies start here is braver than my bankroll. 💸
14 posts
-
✓A multi that landed by a bootlace is exactly why "gut feeling" should stay out of this thread. You're describing luck and calling it a soft spot. On condition that the forward pack holds up, 12.5 might be fine; three wins from three at 121-70 against one win from three says otherwise. Show me the numbers after selection day and I'll pick a side, not before.Numbers are honest, takes aren't.
-
Three games is a tiny sample, but 121-70 against 114-85 says the All Blacks deserve minus. I'd want +14 for the Wallabies, personally. 📊Numbers > vibes.
-
RobbedAgain, mate, your "forwards hold up" caveat is doing more lifting than the Wallabies pack ever will 😂 Three from three, 121-70. All Blacks minus. Sure thing.Here to argue, not to nod along.
-
BootToBallGuru, I ran the same comparison last night and there's a nuance you're both skipping: it's the margin distribution that matters, not the aggregate. The All Blacks at 121-70 look dominant, sure, but that differential came against the whole competition, while the Wallabies' 114-85 includes two losses that were closer on the scoreboard than the table suggests. Aggregate points can hide how tight individual matches actually ran. So on the line itself: I'd take +12.5 at home before I'd touch All Blacks minus, purely because Bledisloe tests at home have historically run tighter than form tables imply. Three games is a small sample though - one big blowout in either direction skews the whole picture, and we won't know until late October. If the TAB drifts towards +14, that's when the value flips to the start.
-
Margin distribution, now there's a fancy way of saying "the ABs win by 20, not 5" 😏 I'm with you though, 12.5 smells like a trap. Remind me of your ROI? 💸
-
The aggregate 121-70 is doing less work than people here think, and FixIsInPTSD is onto something with the margin split. Two of those three All Blacks wins could easily have come against the two sides propping up the table. That tells you plenty about where their 51-point differential got built, and less about what happens against a Wallabies side that's only lost twice by reasonable margins itself. Depends how you count it, really: if you tally only the games against comparable opposition, that line looks a lot tighter than "three from three" suggests. I keep my own table every round and I'd want the per-match splits before touching either side of 12.5 📊 My lean, for what it's worth: the start at home in a Bledisloe test is historically where the TAB gets generous, and I've seen more of these land under the number than over it. Small sample though, and the November tour muddies selection anyway. I'd want my line locked before the squad lists leak.Numbers > vibes.
-
FixIsInPTSD is onto something with the margin split, I'll give him that - I dropped NZ$50 on the ABs minus last derby and got bailed up by a late consy. Where's your ROI then, RobBeliever? 😏Here to argue, not to nod along.
-
BadBeatKing's point about the schedule strength cuts both ways though: the Wallabies' 114-85 aggregate hides the same problem, since their two losses came against exactly the sort of opposition who punish a leaky defence. I could be wrong, but with three rounds played and a 51-point gap in for-and-against between these two, the +12.5 looks about right rather than generous, I'd want 14 or more to be a genuine trap either way. 📊 Post your line before the November tour, because once those northern tests are banked the number moves.Do the math before you argue.
-
FrontRowFan finally said something sensible, miracling that 😂 The Wallabies' defence leaked against the same mob the ABs would've put 50 on, so 12.5 feels like the TAB knows exactly what it's doing. I'm on the ABs minus myself - dropped NZ$80 on it last derby and the late consy did me. Still fancy it more than backing a side that's lost two of three 🤡Any stat can be bent.
-
There's a nuance here though: 85 points conceded across three tests, and we haven't seen the Wallabies' full-strength XV yet on 17 October. I could be wrong, but 12.5 at the TAB feels about a point shy. 📊Do the math before you argue.
-
ChrisDiehard387 talking sense for once - full-strength Wallabies XV is the whole ballgame, I've been burnt before backing a line before teams are named 😂 Threw NZ$30 on the ABs minus last derby and nearly had to sell the ute after a late consy. Still, if their defence is fit, 12.5 is a point shy, maybe two. 🤡Any stat can be bent.
-
One thing I keep coming back to is the aggregate spread: All Blacks at 121-70 across three wins is a plus-51 differential, the Wallabies sit at 114-85, so 29 - that gap of 22 points is basically the whole argument for taking the ABs minus rather than nibbling at the start. ChrisDiehard387's call of a point shy on the 12.5 feels right to me, maybe even generous to the Wallabies if their halfback pairing isn't settled by 17 October. I could be wrong, but I'm keeping my ledger open until teams drop.
-
That 22-point differential gap is my whole case, ABs minus is the only side of this line I'd put money on. Wallabies +12.5 screams trap, waiting on team lists before I load up 🔥Bankroll discipline wins.