Visitors at Half the Home Price: How Often Do Both Teams Score?
When the visitors are priced at half the home price or shorter, both teams still score in just over half of games. The home underdog is the side that usually blanks.
Written by Beatrice HollowayBTTS & goal patterns analyst
- 1.92Fair odds for BTTS Yes (1/frequency)
- 50.8%Priced by the 1X2 and goals odds
- 52.0%Both teams scored (actual)
- 13,310Away ≤0.5× home price: matches
- Market
- BTTS
- The question
- When the away side is priced at half the home price or shorter, how often do both teams score, and does the home underdog find the net?
- Sample
- 22 European divisions, 2005/06-2025/26 seasons, 155,895 matches with 1X2 and over/under 2.5 prices
My instinct says a heavy away favourite makes for a one-sided game, which should hurt both teams to score. It's the first price rung I check when a strong visitor turns up on my both teams to score predictions page. Here the rung is simple: the away decimal price is half the home price or shorter, so a home side at 4.00 hosts a visitor at 2.00 or shorter.
Across 22 European divisions and 13,310 matches at this rung, both teams scored in 52.0% (±0.8) against 50.8% priced by the 1X2 and goals odds. That works out to fair odds of 1.92 against 1.97 from the prices. It's a small gap, and most of it comes from the pricing model itself, which I explain below.
Rung 1BTTS barely moves until visitors become overwhelming favourites
This ladder splits away favourites by how much shorter they are than the home side, with priced and actual BTTS rates side by side. From 0.33-0.50× through to 0.80-1.00×, the actual rate sits in a tight band: 53.5%, 53.4%, 52.6% and 53.2%. Whether the visitors are mild or clear favourites makes little difference.
The drop only comes at the extreme end. Under 0.25×, across 4,130 games, both teams scored in 49.2% against 48.3% priced. The market sees that coming, and the price already sits lower.
View the data: btts when the visitors are favourites
| Priced (model) | Actual | 95% range | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Under 0.25× (4,130 games) | 48.3% | 49.2% | ±1.5 |
| 0.25-0.33× (2,743 games) | 51.3% | 52.8% | ±1.9 |
| 0.33-0.50× (6,437 games) | 52.2% | 53.5% | ±1.2 |
| 0.50-0.67× (8,101 games) | 52.5% | 53.4% | ±1.1 |
| 0.67-0.80× (7,672 games) | 52.4% | 52.6% | ±1.1 |
| 0.80-1.00× (13,464 games) | 52.1% | 53.2% | ±0.8 |
Every rung shows actual slightly above priced, from +0.2 to +1.5 points. My model runs 1.4 points low on BTTS across all 155,895 games (51.7% actual vs 50.3% priced) because it treats home and away goals as independent. Gaps this size are what I'd expect from the model's own bias, not a pricing error to exploit.
Rung 2The home underdog carries almost all the blanking risk
This chart answers the second half of my question: who fails to score? At the half-price rung overall, the home side drew a blank in 39.9% of games and the away favourite in only 14.1%. When BTTS Yes loses here, it nearly always loses because the hosts never got on the scoresheet.
The pattern gets more lopsided as the visitors shorten. Under 0.25×, only the home side blanked in 41.0% of games, only the away side in 5.3%, and 0-0 came up in 4.6%. Compare that with 0.50-0.67×, where those figures are 25.0%, 13.4% and 8.2%.
View the data: who fails to score with an away favourite
| Both scored | Only home blanked | Only away blanked | 0-0 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Under 0.25× | 49.1% | 41.0% | 5.3% | 4.6% |
| 0.25-0.33× | 52.8% | 34.4% | 6.9% | 5.9% |
| 0.33-0.50× | 53.5% | 29.1% | 10.4% | 7.0% |
| 0.50-0.67× | 53.4% | 25.0% | 13.4% | 8.2% |
What surprises me is the 0-0 share. It shrinks as the favourite gets stronger, because the visitors almost always score. The BTTS question at this rung is really a question about whether the underdog's attack can find one goal.
Rung 3Lower tiers show no lift over the price
Splitting by league level, top flights make up most of the sample with 9,553 games: 52.2% actual against 50.7% priced, fair odds 1.92. Second tiers look similar, with 51.7% against 50.0% across 1,630 games.
Tiers 3-5 in England and Scotland go the other way. Both teams scored in 51.4% against 51.9% priced, a gap of −0.5 points and fair odds of 1.94. Even after allowing for a model that normally runs low, the prices in those leagues look fully in line with what happened.
| League tier | Matches | Priced | Actual | Gap (pts) | Fair odds |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Top flights | 9,553 | 50.7% | 52.2% | +1.5 | 1.92 |
| Second tiers | 1,630 | 50.0% | 51.7% | +1.7 | 1.93 |
| Tiers 3-5 | 2,127 | 51.9% | 51.4% | −0.5 | 1.94 |
Rung 4The modest edge over price has narrowed with time
The last chart follows the rung through three-season spells. In 05/06-07/08, both teams scored in 51.7% of 1,328 games against 49.3% priced, the widest gap on the chart. In the latest spell, 23/24-25/26, it was 53.1% of 2,316 games against 52.4% priced.
The actual rate has stayed in a narrow range all along. The priced rate has crept upwards towards it. As I read it, the market now gives home underdogs a little more credit for scoring than it once did.
View the data: visitors at half the home price: btts by era
| Actual | Priced (model) | |
|---|---|---|
| 05/06-07/08 | 51.7% | 49.3% |
| 08/09-10/11 | 51.0% | 49.5% |
| 11/12-13/14 | 52.3% | 51.3% |
| 14/15-16/17 | 51.9% | 49.5% |
| 17/18-19/20 | 53.0% | 50.9% |
| 20/21-22/23 | 50.7% | 51.3% |
| 23/24-25/26 | 53.1% | 52.4% |
None of this makes the rung a system. These are historical frequencies, and the honest summary is that the price tells you roughly what happens.
At this price
- Compare against 1.92
At half the home price or shorter, both teams scored in 52.0% of games, which gives fair odds of 1.92. A BTTS Yes price well under that is paying less than history suggests.
- Judge the home attack
The home side blanked in 39.9% of these games against 14.1% for the away favourite. Spend your research time on whether the underdog can score, not on the favourite.
- Respect extreme favourites
Under 0.25× the home price, BTTS fell to 49.2% from 4,130 games. At that extreme, the price already reflects how rarely the hosts score.
Questions bettors ask
How often do both teams score when the away team is a big favourite?
When the away price is half the home price or shorter, both teams scored in 52.0% of 13,310 games. The prices implied 50.8%.
Does the home underdog usually score against a strong away side?
Usually, yes, but not always. At this rung the home side failed to score in 39.9% of games, against 14.1% for the away favourite.
Is BTTS different in lower leagues with away favourites?
Slightly. In tiers 3-5, both teams scored in 51.4% against 51.9% priced, while top flights came in at 52.2% against 50.7% priced.
Beatrice Holloway here. BTTS is my main beat — most of my time goes on figuring out which fixtures actually produce goals on both sides, and which ones just look like they will.
View profile →
