Home Teams Priced 1.30-1.39: How Often Do Both Teams Score?

When a home side is priced 1.30-1.39, most bettors picture a comfortable win and a clean sheet. I wanted to test that picture against the record. This study covers 22 European divisions from 2005/06 to 2025/26 and 3,932 matches at this exact rung. It compares how often both teams scored with what the 1X2 and over/under prices implied.

The headline is that both teams scored in 49.8% of these games, against 47.6% implied. That points to fair BTTS Yes odds of 2.01, a little shorter than the 2.10 the prices suggested. It is the kind of rung I check before anything goes on my BTTS yes predictions page, because the visiting side scores more often here than the favourite's price suggests.

Rung 1The 1.30-1.39 rung outruns its implied BTTS rate

This chart runs up the home price ladder and pairs the implied BTTS rate with the actual one on each rung. As the favourite gets less short, both teams score more often. The rate climbs from 46.0% at 1.20-1.29 to 51.8% at 1.60-1.69, and that is the slope you would expect.

The 1.30-1.39 rung stands out because of the gap. Its actual rate beat the implied one by +2.2 points, which sits outside the ±1.6 point 95% range. The rungs on either side were closer to their prices. 1.20-1.29 came in at +0.5 points and 1.40-1.49 at +1.3 points.

One caveat runs through every rung. The goals model behind the implied figures runs under reality everywhere. Across all 155,895 priced matches BTTS landed 51.7% against 50.5% implied, a baseline gap of +1.2 points. So part of this rung's gap is the model being cautious in general. What makes the rung interesting is that its gap is clearly bigger than that baseline.

Rung 2Away-only wins are rarer than the model expects

This stacked bar splits every match into four outcomes: both scored, home only, away only and neither. The home-only share is almost exactly what the prices implied, at 41.7% against 41.5%. The extra BTTS hits come from somewhere else.

They come from the away-only column. The visitors scored without reply in just 3.7% of games, against 5.8% implied. Goalless draws were also slightly rarer than expected, at 4.8% against 5.2%.

My reading is that when the underdog scores at this price, the favourite usually answers. Of the BTTS No results, 83.1% were home-only scorers, with only 7.4% away-only and 9.6% goalless. If you back BTTS No here, you are mostly backing a home clean sheet.

Rung 3The over 2.5 price moves BTTS by 12.6 points

This is the chart I would look at first on a matchday. It splits the rung by the over 2.5 price. When over 2.5 was priced under 1.60, both teams scored in 55.7% of 1,536 games against 52.6% implied. When it was 1.90+, the rate fell to 43.1% across 383 games.

The middle band, 1.60-1.74, was almost exactly on its price at 46.9% against 46.8%. The gaps appear at both ends, and the 1.75-1.89 band also ran ahead at 45.9% against 42.8%. Those last two bands are small samples with wide ranges, so I treat them as a lean rather than a finding.

Rung 4An away favourite at 1.30-1.39 behaves much the same

Here the same price is placed on the away side. BTTS landed 49.7% across 1,126 games against 48.7% implied. With the home side at that price it was 49.8%, so the actual rates are close to identical.

The difference is in the expectation. The prices already gave away favourites a slightly higher BTTS chance, so the gap is smaller. With a sample of that size, the ±2.9 point range on the away figure is too wide to read much into.

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 →