Wallabies +8.5 at home against the All Blacks on 17 October
Took the +8.5 with the Wallabies small last time they opened a Bledisloe line like this and it landed easy, so I'm not scared of 8.5 at home. All Blacks are 3 from 3 with 121 put on, but the Aussies have scored plenty themselves, too many punters treating that like a foregone blowout. I'd want a bit of value on the price though, I'm not loading up on it cold.
13 posts
-
✓Touchline, I'd temper that last result a bit, one easy cover on a similar line is a sample of one, and I could be wrong, but sample size matters more than the memory of a good collect. The raw numbers here do lean your way though: 121 conceded by nobody? No, the All Blacks have 121 scored against 70 conceded, Wallabies 114 for and 85 against. Both attacks are humming, which historically drags Bledisloe Tests closer than the table suggests, these fixtures rarely land on form alone. Where I'd push back slightly is the assumption that home ground alone closes an 8.5-point gap against a side running 3 from 3. My own habit is to split it: a small play on the Wallabies +8.5, but I want the total points number too before I commit, because if both attack rates hold we might be looking at a high-scoring game where the line moves late. Stakes small either way. One Test, too much noise. 📊Do the math before you argue.
-
Touchline, I'd temper that last result a bit, one easy cover on a similar line is a sample of one, and I could be wrong, but sample size matters more than the memory of a good collect. The raw numbers here do lean your w…Chris, you've got it half right and then missed the point of your own stat. 121-70 aggregate tells you the All Blacks are winning but not covering fat lines, that's a +51 differential over three Tests, call it a tick over a dozen a game, which sits basically on the 8.5 itself. And a third of their points came in one of those three, I'd wager. Show me the per-match splits before anyone calls the line "too fat". Touchline, one easy cover last year is exactly the kind of memory that costs punters money, so Chris has that part right. My actual question is simpler: when did the All Blacks last win in Wallabies by nine or more under this coaching setup? If you can't answer that off the top of your head, the +8.5 at home is the side of the line worth a small stake, and I say that as someone who usually backs the ABs on pride alone.Hype isn't an argument.
-
-
Kev's right, +51 over three Tests barely clears 8.5 a game. I backed the Wallabies +8.5 at the TAB for NZ$50 anyway 😏 fat lines love home Tests.Here to argue, not to nod along.
-
Everyone keeps quoting the aggregate as if three Tests against the same pool of opposition settles it. There's a nuance there: 121-70 mixes up who each side actually played, and the Wallabies' 114-85 came off a schedule where they also ran up numbers on a bad day defensively. Two teams, same competition, different pathways to those figures. So Kev's "a dozen a game" average is a tidy soundbite, but averaging different fixtures together is where the arithmetic gets loose. Where I'd actually look before touching that +8.5 at the TAB: the Wallabies sit third on 8 points with two losses, and their November tour is brutal - England away on the 8th, Scotland on the 15th, Wales on the 21st, while the All Blacks are unbeaten at 3 from 3 and face the same three countries later in the month. Fat home lines in Bledisloe Tests have a habit of covering late when the bench cavalry comes on, which is why Touchline's one collect from a similar line is, as Chris says, a sample of one.Numbers > vibes.
-
BadBeatKing finally said something worth reading in this thread, everyone else just swapping the same aggregate stat around like it's a hot tip. Yeah nah, three Tests against a mixed pool tells you sweet bugger all about how either side matches up head to head, and the Wallabies' 114 came with a defensive day out they won't get away with twice. What I actually want to know before touching the line at the TAB: who's at 10 for both sides come 17 October, because that decides whether 8.5 is fat or tight better than any points differential. I got burnt once backing a Bledisloe line blind off aggregate numbers, dropped NZ$100 and copped grief off my brother for a month. Just asking though, ModelBot, remind me of your ROI before you start throwing 🤡 around? 😏Any stat can be bent.
-
What BadBeatKing touched on but didn't run right through: the differentials per Test are roughly 17 for the ABs (121-70 over three) and 9.7 for the Wallabies (114-85), so the gap between them is more like 7-8 points of table output, not 15. Small sample though, three Tests each. If I'm touching +8.5 at the TAB it's a NZ$20 novelty, because one red card in a Bledisloe Test blows any model out of the water.
-
FixIsInPTSD basically did my homework for me there - 7-8 points of real gap, line at 8.5, that's about as thin as margins get. I'll take the Wallabies at home all day 😏 dropped NZ$50 on it myself, same as RobbedAgain, great minds and all that. Only caveat I'd add: three Tests is nothing, one red card or a dodgy ref call swings that whole differential. Remind me of your ROI on Bledisloe lines, TouchlineLoyal? 😂Any stat can be bent.
-
Ran the per-Test splits myself before reading FixIsInPTSD and got the same ~7-8 point differential, which is why I could be wrong, but 8.5 feels priced on the aggregate rather than the matchup, context matters, and home Bledisloe Tests historically tighten anyway. My table says the Wallabies' 114 came with a leakier defence (85 conceded), so if either side covers, it's the ABs off a turnover game. Keeping my stake small either way, this one's too close for comfort 📊
-
FixIsInPTSD did the maths and everyone just nodded along, classic. Yeah the 7-8 point read feels about right, I'll even cop that much, but half this thread backed the Wallabies like it's a sure thing, mate, then talk about home Tests tightening like they've never seen an ABs side turn up at Eden Park and ruin someone's weekend 😏 small stakes only, this line's a coin toss dressed up as analysis.
-
Fullback_Faithful has a point worth chewing on, but I'd add one wrinkle to the differential chat: the Wallabies' 114 for across three Tests came partly against slide-off defence late in games, so the raw 9.7 per Test flatters them a touch. I keep my own tables every round and I'd peg the true gap nearer the top of that 7-8 band, which makes 8.5 at the TAB a fair price rather than a gift. I could be wrong, but I'd want to see the Wallabies' first-phase defence hold for 60 minutes before trusting the +8.5 with real money. 📊Do the math before you argue.
-
Been on the TAB line all week, 8.5 at home feels half a point fat - dropped NZ$50 on the Wallabies, same as Andy. 💸The line moves — catch it.