Home Teams Priced Under 1.10: How Often Do They Fail to Win?
When the home side is quoted under 1.10, the draw and the away win turn up far less often than the odds suggest. Here is what the data shows at that rung.
Written by Ella Yardley1X2 specialist
- 15.30fair odds for the home side not winning
- 11.8%failure rate priced by the odds
- 6.5%failed to win (draw or away win)
- 459home sides priced 1.01–1.09
- Market
- 1X2
- The question
- When the home side is priced 1.01–1.09, how often does the game end in a draw or an away win, compared with the price?
- Sample
- Football, 38 leagues: 22 European divisions 2005/06–2025/26 and 16 leagues elsewhere 2012–2024; 210,453 matches with pre-match 1X2 prices
The shortest home price on the coupon tempts two kinds of bettor. One wants an easy addition to a multiple. The other wants a big price on the upset. I wanted to know what actually happens when a home side is priced 1.01–1.09, using 210,453 matches across 38 leagues, and whether the odds overstate or understate the chance of a slip.
The headline answer is that across 459 home sides at this rung, only 30 failed to win: 6.5% against 11.8% priced by the margin-free odds. That makes the fair odds on the home side not winning 15.30, against the 8.46 the price implied. The market has been too generous to the underdog here, and that matters whether you are backing the favourite or opposing it. I set out the 1X2 context for every rung on my 1X2 bet tips page. This file stays on the very shortest one.
Rung 1Short home favourites fail less often than priced
This chart shows the share of games where the home side failed to win, meaning a draw or an away win, at each price rung from 1.01 to 1.80. The priced dot comes from the margin-free odds and the actual dot is what happened. At every rung the actual failure rate sits below the priced one. The gap is widest at the bottom of the ladder, at −5.3 points for 1.01–1.09.
The next rung, 1.10–1.19, tells the same story on a much bigger sample of 2,675 games: 13.5% failed to win against 18.5% priced. By the 1.70–1.80 end the two dots nearly touch, at 44.5% actual against 46.6% priced.
Bars show the 95% range around the actual rate.
View the data: home side fails to win: priced vs actual
| Priced | Actual | 95% range | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.01–1.09 (459 games) | 11.8% | 6.5% | ±2.3 |
| 1.10–1.19 (2,675 games) | 18.5% | 13.5% | ±1.3 |
| 1.20–1.29 (4,494 games) | 24.7% | 20.5% | ±1.2 |
| 1.30–1.39 (5,787 games) | 30.2% | 26.9% | ±1.1 |
| 1.40–1.49 (7,277 games) | 34.9% | 32.0% | ±1.1 |
| 1.50–1.59 (10,202 games) | 39.3% | 37.6% | ±0.9 |
| 1.60–1.69 (11,256 games) | 43.0% | 42.5% | ±0.9 |
| 1.70–1.80 (15,130 games) | 46.6% | 44.5% | ±0.8 |
What I take from this is that the market adds the most imagined risk to the most lopsided games. The bars around the actual rate matter, though. With only 459 games at the top rung, the 95% range is ±2.3 points, so a handful of shocks either way would shift the number noticeably. I treat the direction as solid and the exact size as loose.
Rung 2Draws make up most of the rare failures
This chart splits each rung into home wins, draws and away wins. At 1.01–1.09 the home side won 93.5%, drew 5.2% and lost 1.3%. Of the 30 failures, 24 were draws and only 6 were away wins.
As the home price drifts out, both the draw and the away slices grow, but the draw stays the larger of the two all the way to 1.80. If a heavy favourite is going to drop points, history says it is far more likely to be a frustrating stalemate than a defeat.
View the data: how each home price rung ends
| Home win | Draw | Away win | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.01–1.09 | 93.5% | 5.2% | 1.3% |
| 1.10–1.19 | 86.5% | 10.1% | 3.4% |
| 1.20–1.29 | 79.4% | 14.2% | 6.4% |
| 1.30–1.39 | 73.1% | 17.5% | 9.4% |
| 1.40–1.49 | 68.0% | 20.5% | 11.5% |
| 1.50–1.59 | 62.4% | 22.0% | 15.6% |
| 1.60–1.69 | 57.5% | 25.1% | 17.4% |
| 1.70–1.80 | 55.4% | 25.5% | 19.1% |
For my own reading, this shapes the situational checks I run before a short-priced game. A favourite resting players, or a visitor set up to defend, points towards the draw risk. A genuine away win at this rung has been rare enough that I would need a very specific reason to think about it.
Rung 3Backing the home side lands close to break-even
This chart shows the flat-stake return from backing the home side at each rung, at the major bookmaker's price and at the best price available across the market. At 1.01–1.09 the return was −0.2% per bet at the major-book price and +2.6% at the best price. Across the whole home ladder the major-book figure ranged from −5.5% to −0.2%. The best price ranged from −1.4% to +2.6%.
So the shortest rung was the least costly place to back a home favourite at the major-book price. Price shopping was the difference between a small loss and a small gain.
View the data: backing the home side: flat-stake return
| Major-book price | Best price | |
|---|---|---|
| 1.01–1.09 | −0.2% | +2.6% |
| 1.10–1.19 | −0.5% | +2.6% |
| 1.20–1.29 | −1.2% | +2.2% |
| 1.30–1.39 | −1.9% | +1.7% |
| 1.40–1.49 | −2.4% | +1.6% |
| 1.50–1.59 | −3.8% | +0.2% |
| 1.60–1.69 | −5.5% | −1.4% |
| 1.70–1.80 | −2.9% | +1.5% |
The caveat I would put front and centre: these are past results on a modest sample, and the best-price column assumes you got the single highest quote every time, which few bettors manage. I read it as an upper bound, not a promise. A favourite at 1.01–1.09 is a low-margin, high-strike bet in the history books, not a profitable system.
Rung 4Opposing a heavy home favourite has been expensive
This table looks at the other side of the 1X2 market when the home team is priced 1.01–1.09. The draw landed 5.2% of the time against 8.2% priced. Its fair odds were 19.12, while the average draw price on offer was 11.79. Backing it returned −39.8% at the major-book price and −28.1% at the best price.
The away win is starker still. It landed 1.3% of the time against 3.6% priced, with fair odds of 76.50 against an average price of 27.68. That returned −65.1% per bet at the major-book price and −54.3% at the best price.
| Outcome | Happened | Priced | Fair odds | Avg price | Return | Best-price return |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Draw | 5.2% | 8.2% | 19.12 | 11.79 | −39.8% | −28.1% |
| Away win | 1.3% | 3.6% | 76.50 | 27.68 | −65.1% | −54.3% |
Big prices on the underdog look like value because the payout is large, but the payout has been nowhere near large enough for how rarely these outcomes happen. If I want to oppose a short home favourite, these numbers tell me I need a reason far stronger than the price alone.
At this price
- Respect the short price
At 1.01–1.09 the home side failed to win just 6.5% of the time against 11.8% priced. Do not assume an upset is due simply because the odds look stingy.
- Shop for the price
Backing the home side returned −0.2% at the major-book price but +2.6% at the best price. The quote you take makes most of the difference at this rung.
- Avoid the long shot
The away win came in 1.3% of the time and returned −65.1% at the major-book price. Its fair odds of 76.50 dwarf the average price of 27.68.
Questions bettors ask
How often do home teams priced under 1.10 fail to win?
Across 459 home sides priced 1.01–1.09, 30 failed to win, which is 6.5% of games. The margin-free odds priced that outcome at 11.8%.
Is backing the draw against a heavy home favourite worth it?
Historically it has not been. The draw landed 5.2% of the time against 8.2% priced, and backing it returned −39.8% per bet at the major bookmaker's price.
What are fair odds on a short home favourite not winning?
Based on what happened at 1.01–1.09, fair odds on a draw or away win were 15.30. The margin-free price implied 8.46, so the market overstated the risk.
I'm a 1X2 specialist who digs into form, team news, and the situational details most previews overlook before backing a match result.
View profile →
