Home Win at 1.30 to 1.39: Fair Odds and Returns at the Best Price
At 1.30–1.39 the home favourite wins more often than its price implies, but the margin swallows that. Where you place the bet decides which side of zero you finish on.
Written by Ella Yardley1X2 specialist
- +1.7%return at the best price
- −1.9%return at the major-book price
- 1.37fair odds from actual win rate
- 5,787home sides priced 1.30–1.39
- Market
- 1X2
- The question
- What are the fair odds for a home side priced 1.30–1.39, and how much does taking the best price change the flat-stake return?
- 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
Short-priced home favourites come up on my match result tips page more than any other price, and the question I keep asking is simple. When a home side is quoted somewhere between 1.30 and 1.39, how often does it actually win? And does the price you take change whether backing it makes sense?
The answer is clearer than I expected. Across 5,787 home sides in this rung, the win rate was 73.1% against a margin-free priced rate of 69.8%, which gives fair odds of 1.37. The average major-book price was 1.34 and the average best price 1.39. That gap is the whole story: flat stakes returned −1.9% at the major-book price and +1.7% at the best price.
Rung 1Home favourites beat their implied chance at every rung
This chart sets the priced win rate against the actual win rate for every home rung from 1.01 to 1.80. The pattern is consistent: the home side won more often than priced at 8 of 8 rungs, with gaps from +0.5 points to +5.3 points. In other words, once the margin is stripped out, the market still slightly underrates the favourite at home.
At 1.30–1.39 the gap is +3.3 points, 73.1% actual against 69.8% priced, with a 95% range of ±1.1 points. Even at the edge of that range the home side still comes out ahead of its price, so this is not a blip from a thin sample.
View the data: home win: priced vs actual, 1.01–1.80
| Priced | Actual | 95% range | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.01–1.09 (459 games) | 88.2% | 93.5% | ±2.3 |
| 1.10–1.19 (2,675 games) | 81.5% | 86.5% | ±1.3 |
| 1.20–1.29 (4,494 games) | 75.3% | 79.5% | ±1.2 |
| 1.30–1.39 (5,787 games) | 69.8% | 73.1% | ±1.1 |
| 1.40–1.49 (7,277 games) | 65.1% | 68.0% | ±1.1 |
| 1.50–1.59 (10,202 games) | 60.7% | 62.4% | ±0.9 |
| 1.60–1.69 (11,256 games) | 57.0% | 57.5% | ±0.9 |
| 1.70–1.80 (15,130 games) | 53.4% | 55.5% | ±0.8 |
What I take from this is that the problem at short prices is not the read on the match. The favourite wins slightly more than the price implies. The problem is the bookmaker's margin, which is where the next two charts come in.
Rung 2The shorter end of the rung carries the edge
Splitting the rung into three narrow bands shows that the edge is not spread evenly. At 1.30–1.32, home sides won 76.6% of 1,368 games against 71.8% priced, fair odds 1.31, and returned 0.0% at the major-book price and +3.7% at the best. That is the only band in this rung where the standard quote broke even.
Move to 1.33–1.35 and the win rate drops to 73.6% of 1,878 games (70.1% priced), fair odds 1.36, with −1.8% at the major book and +1.9% at the best. At 1.36–1.39, home sides won 70.8% of 2,541 games (68.4% priced), fair odds 1.41, and the returns fall to −3.1% and +0.6%.
| Price | Games | Priced | Actual | Fair odds | Return | Best-price return |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.30–1.32 | 1,368 | 71.8% | 76.6% | 1.31 | 0.0% | +3.7% |
| 1.33–1.35 | 1,878 | 70.1% | 73.6% | 1.36 | −1.8% | +1.9% |
| 1.36–1.39 | 2,541 | 68.4% | 70.8% | 1.41 | −3.1% | +0.6% |
The gap between actual and priced narrows steadily as the price drifts out through the rung. When I see a home side near the top of this bracket, I treat it as a much thinner proposition than one at the very bottom, even though both sit in the same range.
Rung 3Taking the best price turns short rungs positive
Here the full ladder is shown twice, once at the major-book price and once at the best price available. The major-book line sits below zero at every rung, and it gets steadily worse as the price lengthens up to 1.60–1.69. The best-price line sits above zero almost everywhere through the short end.
Our rung fits that pattern neatly. Its neighbours read −1.2% and +2.2% at 1.20–1.29, and −2.4% and +1.6% at 1.40–1.49, so 1.30–1.39 at −1.9% and +1.7% is no outlier. The 1.60–1.69 rung is the exception, staying negative even at the best price.
View the data: home win returns: major-book vs best price
| 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% |
For a 1X2 bettor this is the most practical chart in the study. The same selection, on the same matches, lands on opposite sides of break-even depending only on where the bet is placed.
Rung 4Most best prices sit 2–3.9% above the major book
This chart shows how far the best price sat above the major-book quote. In 56.0% of 1.30–1.39 home games the premium was 2–3.9%, and those 3,243 games returned +1.7% at the best price. A further 22.4% had a premium of 4–5.9%, also returning +1.7% across 1,298 games.
The tails matter too. Only 10.2% of games had a premium under 2%, returning +0.5% across 593 games, while the 11.3% with a premium of 6% or more returned +2.9% across 653 games. Where the quotes were spread widest, the best price was worth the most.
View the data: how much higher was the best price?
| Share of 1.30–1.39 home games by best-price premium | |
|---|---|
| Under 2% | 10.2% |
| 2–3.9% | 56.0% |
| 4–5.9% | 22.4% |
| 6% or more | 11.3% |
The main caveat belongs here. These best-price returns assume you always got the single highest quote, which few bettors manage on every bet, so treat them as an upper bound. The edge is small and drawn from many seasons of past results. It can vanish in a run of a few hundred bets, and none of this is a system that promises future profit.
At this price
- Compare prices before backing
The average major-book price here was 1.34 and the average best price 1.39, and that difference moved the return from −1.9% to +1.7%. Taking the first quote you see is where the value goes.
- Use 1.37 as your yardstick
Fair odds across the rung were 1.37. A quote below that has historically paid less than the actual win rate justified.
- Respect the narrow bands
At 1.30–1.32 the best-price return was +3.7%, but at 1.36–1.39 it was only +0.6%. Near the top of the rung there is very little room for a worse price.
Questions bettors ask
What are the fair odds for a home favourite priced around 1.35?
In the 1.33–1.35 band, home sides won 73.6% of 1,878 games, which gives fair odds of 1.36. Across the whole 1.30–1.39 rung the fair odds were 1.37.
Do short-priced home favourites win more often than the odds suggest?
In this data, yes. The home side won more often than priced at 8 of 8 rungs, and at 1.30–1.39 it won 73.1% against 69.8% priced.
Is backing home favourites at 1.30–1.39 profitable?
Flat stakes returned −1.9% at the major-book price and +1.7% at the best price. The best-price figure is an upper bound and reflects past results, so it is not a profitable system.
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 →
