Home Favourites at 1.40-1.49: How Often Does the Visitor Blank?
When the home side is a short favourite at 1.40-1.49, the visitor usually finds a goal about half the time. The data shows who blanks, and how often, when they don't.
Written by Marcus CampbellBTTS specialist
- 2.01Fair BTTS Yes odds
- 48.5%BTTS implied by the prices
- 49.8%Both teams scored
- 4,864Matches at home 1.40-1.49
- Market
- BTTS
- The question
- When the home side is priced 1.40-1.49, how often does the visitor fail to score, and how much of BTTS No does that explain?
- Sample
- 22 European divisions, 2005/06-2025/26 seasons; 4,864 matches at this rung out of 155,895 priced
A home price of 1.40-1.49 tells you the bookmaker expects the hosts to win comfortably. For a BTTS bettor the real question is narrower: how often does the visitor fail to score, and is that what drives BTTS No at this price? I pulled 4,864 matches at this rung from 22 European divisions to find out.
The headline answer is that both teams scored in 49.8% of these games against 48.5% implied by the prices, which works out to fair BTTS Yes odds of 2.01. When BTTS fails, it is overwhelmingly because the favourite scored and the visitor didn't. If you want the match-by-match view, my BTTS picks for today page is where that lives. This piece is the price reference I check before I use it.
Rung 1The visitor blanking explains most BTTS No results
This chart splits every match into four outcomes and puts the actual shares next to what the prices implied. Only the home side scored in 39.4% of games against 38.6% implied. Goalless draws came in at 5.4% against 5.8%, and away-only scorers also landed 5.4% against 7.1% implied.
Of the BTTS No results, 78.5% were home-only scorers, with 10.8% away-only and 10.8% goalless. So when you back No at this price, you are mostly betting that the favourite keeps a clean sheet while scoring itself. That is a different bet from expecting a tight, cagey game.
View the data: who scored: actual vs implied
| Both scored | Home only | Away only | Neither | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Actual | 49.8% | 39.4% | 5.4% | 5.4% |
| Implied | 48.5% | 38.6% | 7.1% | 5.8% |
What stands out to me is the away-only share. The model expected the visitor to sneak a win-to-nil more often than it actually did, which fits what I see on the pitch. Underdogs at this price rarely keep a clean sheet against a side that strong.
Rung 2This rung sits mid-table on the home price ladder
Moving along the home price ladder, BTTS ran from 46.0% at 1.20-1.29 up to 51.8% at 1.60-1.69. The shorter the home price, the more often the visitor blanks. That is what you would expect. At 1.40-1.49, actual BTTS beat the implied figure by +1.3 points, which sits inside the ±1.4 point 95% range.
The neighbours look similar. 1.30-1.39 produced 49.8% against 47.6% implied (+2.2 points, 3,932 games), and 1.50-1.59 produced 50.1% against 48.9% implied (+1.2 points, 7,221 games).
View the data: btts up the home price ladder
| Implied | Actual | 95% range | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.20-1.29 (3,436 games) | 45.5% | 46.0% | ±1.7 |
| 1.30-1.39 (3,932 games) | 47.6% | 49.8% | ±1.6 |
| 1.40-1.49 (4,864 games) | 48.5% | 49.8% | ±1.4 |
| 1.50-1.59 (7,221 games) | 48.9% | 50.1% | ±1.2 |
| 1.60-1.69 (7,939 games) | 49.6% | 51.8% | ±1.1 |
| 1.70-1.79 (8,104 games) | 49.8% | 51.6% | ±1.1 |
The main caveat is the model itself. It treats each side's goals as independent and runs 1.2 points under the actual rate across all 155,895 priced matches, where BTTS landed 51.7% against 50.5% implied. Judged against that baseline, a +1.3 gap here means this rung is priced about right, not underpriced.
Rung 3Top flights run slightly hotter than lower divisions
Splitting by tier, top flights produced 50.7% BTTS against 48.8% implied across 3,020 games. Lower divisions came in at 48.4% against 47.9% implied across 1,844 games. That is a spread of 2.3 points between the groups, with gaps to the price of +1.9 and +0.5 points.
The top-flight gap is a bit wider than the baseline, and the lower-division one is a bit narrower. Both samples carry wider ranges than the full rung, though, so I read this as a lean, not a rule.
View the data: btts by league tier at this rung
| Implied | Actual | 95% range | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Top flights (3,020 games) | 48.8% | 50.7% | ±1.8 |
| Lower divisions (1,844 games) | 47.9% | 48.4% | ±2.3 |
My guess is that stronger visitors in top divisions have more quality going forward, even as heavy underdogs. Lower-league outsiders at this price seem to struggle more to break through.
Rung 4Half-time state reshapes the BTTS picture fast
Both teams had already scored by the break in 18.6% of these matches, which settles BTTS Yes early. The game was 0-0 at half-time in 26.4% of cases (1,286 matches), and BTTS still landed 23.5% of the time from there.
The split states matter most. When only the home side led at the break, BTTS finished 37.9%. When only the away side had scored, it finished 74.6%, because a short-priced favourite behind at home usually finds a reply.
View the data: btts at full time by half-time state
| Share ending BTTS Yes, home 1.40-1.49 | |
|---|---|
| Both scored by half-time | 100% |
| Only home scored | 37.9% |
| Only away scored | 74.6% |
| 0-0 at half-time | 23.5% |
For in-play thinking, a home lead at half-time is the strongest pointer towards BTTS No at this rung. An early away goal pushes the other way, hard.
At this price
- Treat No as clean-sheet bet
78.5% of BTTS No results here were home-only scorers, so judge the favourite's defence before anything else. Goalless draws made up just 10.8%.
- Demand better than 2.01
Fair BTTS Yes odds from the actual rate are 2.01, and 1.99 for No. A price at or below those offers no cushion against the 1.4 point range.
- Lean on tier carefully
Top flights ran 50.7% against lower divisions' 48.4%. Use that as a nudge when two selections look otherwise similar, not as a reason on its own.
Questions bettors ask
How often do both teams score when the home team is priced 1.40-1.49?
Both teams scored in 49.8% of 4,864 matches at this price, against 48.5% implied by the prices. That gives fair BTTS Yes odds of 2.01.
Why does BTTS fail when the home side is a strong favourite?
Mostly because the visitor fails to score: 78.5% of BTTS No results were home-only scorers. Away-only results and goalless draws each made up 10.8%.
What happens to BTTS if it's 0-0 at half-time with a home favourite?
From 0-0 at the break, BTTS still landed 23.5% of the time across 1,286 matches. If only the away side had scored by half-time, it rose to 74.6%.
I'm Marcus Campbell, a football betting writer specialising in BTTS markets, where I dig into the patterns behind both teams finding the net.
View profile →
