Home Teams Priced 1.20-1.29: How Often Is It BTTS No?

When a home side is priced 1.20-1.29, most bettors assume the away team will struggle to score. I tested that across 3,436 matches from 22 European divisions, because this is one of the first price bands I check before anything goes on my BTTS picks for today page. Strong favourites can tempt people into BTTS No without a second thought.

The headline answer is that both teams scored in 46.0% of these games, against 45.5% implied by the prices. That gap of +0.5 points sits well inside the ±1.7 point range, so the market reads this rung about right. BTTS No landed 54.0% of the time, which gives fair odds of 1.85.

Rung 1Home-only scorers account for nearly every BTTS No result

This chart splits every match into four outcomes and sets the actual share against what the prices implied. Only the home side scored in 47.5% of games against 45.7% implied. The away side scoring alone was rare at 3.2% (implied 4.3%), and goalless draws came in at 3.3% (implied 4.5%).

Look only at the BTTS No results and the picture is stark. 88.0% of them were home-only scorers, with 5.9% away-only and 6.1% goalless.

My takeaway is that BTTS No at this price is really a bet on the favourite scoring and keeping a clean sheet. The two other routes to a No, the smash-and-grab and the dead 0-0, both turned up less often than the model expected. If I doubt the home attack, I have little cover left.

Rung 2Two-nil and one-nil lead the scoreline table

The most common result was 2-0 at 13.2%, then 1-0 at 12.1% and 2-1 at 10.7%. Close behind came 3-0 at 10.4%, which tells you how often these favourites score freely without conceding.

Further down, 3-1 took 7.2%, 1-1 took 6.9%, 4-0 took 6.6% and 4-1 took 4.3%. Clean-sheet wins for the home side dominate the top of the list.

The leading BTTS Yes score was 2-1, so when the visitors do score it tends to be a consolation in a game the favourite still controls. A 1-1 draw shows up far less often than the narrow home wins, which matches what I see watching these fixtures: the underdog's goal rarely changes the result.

Rung 3This rung sits close to fair on the ladder

On the home price ladder, BTTS ran from 43.4% at Under 1.20 to 51.8% at 1.60-1.69, so shorter favourites mean fewer games where both sides score. The chart plots actual minus implied at each rung. Under 1.20 matched the price exactly at 43.4% against 43.4% (0.0 points, 2,586 games), while 1.30-1.39 saw 49.8% against 47.6%, the largest gap on the ladder at +2.2 points across 3,932 games.

The main caveat is the model itself. The Poisson method treats each side's goals as independent and runs short of reality across all 155,895 priced matches, where BTTS landed 51.7% against 50.5% implied, a baseline gap of +1.2 points.

Judged against that baseline, the +0.5 at 1.20-1.29 is actually a touch below the model's usual shortfall. I read this rung as fairly priced, perhaps leaning slightly towards No, rather than as an edge in either direction.

Rung 4Recent seasons have pushed BTTS above the implied rate

Splitting the sample by season era shows real drift. From 2005/06-2011/12, BTTS landed 42.0% against 43.3% implied across 1,240 games. The middle era, 2012/13-2018/19, was almost spot on at 45.5% against 45.7% over 1,117 games.

The latest era, 2019/20-2025/26, saw 51.3% against 48.0% implied across 1,079 games. The spread between the oldest and newest groups is 9.3 points, with gaps to the price of −1.3 and +3.3 points.

This is the chart I lean on most. The full-sample 46.0% blends an era when these favourites shut games out with one where visitors find a goal more often than the price suggests. Each era holds only around a third of the games, so I treat the recent gap as a lean and not a certainty.

Written byMarcus Campbell

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 →