NRL Round 13 Tips & Predictions 2022: Anytime Try Scorer Value Picks & Odds

Footylab verdict

Value, strong. The gap clears the key trigger comfortably: the model has him at 25.5% to score, while the price implies 11.1% (a +14.4 percentage point edge, well beyond the 10-point ‘strong’ line). For a middle, that’s basically the market saying “no chance”, while Footylab is seeing a real crash-play profile.

Footylab verdict

Value, strong. This one hits the ‘strong’ threshold on the gap: 23.1% rated to score versus 9.1% implied by 11.00 (a +14.0 point edge). The market is treating him like a pure afterthought, but Footylab’s numbers say he’s live.

Role and uncertainty

The obvious catch is the listing: he’s named as a reserve, and that’s where ATS bets can go to die if the role isn’t what you thought it was. Still, the profile that drives the rating is a mix of base scoring rate, recent form and enough “pop” to matter if he gets the right kind of involvement.

Footylab verdict

Value, strong. Before kickoff, Footylab rated him a 21.6% try chance while the 13.00 quote implied just 7.7% — a +13.9 point edge, well beyond the 10-point ‘strong’ threshold.

Footylab verdict

Value, strong. Pre-game, Footylab rated him 23.0% to score and the 11.00 quote implied 9.1% (a +13.9 point edge, in ‘strong’ territory). For an interchange forward, that’s a big “market asleep” signal.

Post-match note

Tigers got it done 22-16. The bet type still lives and dies on minutes and moments, but the price was doing the heavy lifting here.

Footylab verdict

Value, strong. Footylab has him at 27.7% to score, while 7.00 implies 14.3% (a +13.4 point gap, strong by the 10-point rule). That’s a big disagreement for a lock, and it usually comes from involvement: the model expects him to be around the ball enough to matter.

Why the lock angle works

Locks who push through the middle third and keep turning up in support can rack up sneaky tries without needing a perfect backline shift. His recent try-scoring form and opportunity score are both strong in this slate, and the explosiveness rating suggests he’s not just a “tackle-bot” in the red zone.

Footylab verdict

Ripoff, strong. This is the opposite of a nibble: Footylab rates him 30.8% to score, but 1.60 implies 62.5% (a -31.7 point gap, well beyond the 10-point ‘strong’ ripoff line). The market is pricing him like a near coin-flip-plus to score, and that’s a brutal bar.

What the market is paying for

Yes, the profile is elite: top-end base scoring, huge explosiveness, and the fullback role gives him multiple ways to get there. But that’s already baked into the quote, and then some.

Footylab verdict

Ripoff, strong. Footylab has him at 31.5% to score, while 1.75 implies 57.1% (a -25.7 point gap, strong ripoff by the 10-point rule). That’s the market asking a winger to score at a rate the model simply doesn’t support.

Role and game context

Wingers can look “automatic” when a side is rolling, but they’re also the most game-state dependent: you need clean ball, repeat chances, and enough right-edge/left-edge volume. Footylab still rates him highly within the match, just nowhere near “better than a 50-50” to cross.

Footylab verdict

Ripoff, strong. Before this one kicked off, Footylab priced him at 30.9% to score, while 1.97 implied 50.8% (a -19.9 point gap, strong ripoff). Even with a fullback’s involvement, that’s a big “too short” flag.

What changed in the narrative

The return-to-lineup factor is real: getting key pieces back improves a team’s shape and the fullback’s chances. But the market often overreacts to the “he’s back” storyline and prices the try like it’s guaranteed to follow.

Footylab verdict

Fair, aligned. Fletcher Hunt doesn’t hit the 5-point gap needed to trigger a value/ripoff call. Footylab had him about 28% to score versus roughly 23% implied (around +5 points, but still in ‘no strong signal’ territory).

What made him watchable anyway

Interchange players can drift in and out of ATS relevance depending on how the game unfolds, and this one ended up 28-22. In that kind of open-ish scoreline, a bench player can absolutely pop up, but the pricing here was closer to reasonable than generous.

Footylab verdict

Value, strong. Before kickoff, Footylab had him at 19.5% to score, while 13.00 implies 7.7% — a +11.8 point edge, clearing the ‘strong’ threshold.

How this can land

Interchange forwards tend to score in very specific windows: fresh legs, quick rucks, and a defence that’s just had to make three goal-line sets in a row. The model liked the overall match conditions enough to say the market had overcorrected and pushed his price out too far.

Footylab verdict

Value, small. This one does clear the 5-point trigger, but not the 10-point ‘strong’ line: Footylab had him at 19.5% to score versus 10.0% implied by 10.00 (a +9.5 point edge). It’s value, just not a smash.

The case (and the catch)

The Tigers’ attack environment rated well enough, and there’s some opponent weakness support, but the recent try-scoring form isn’t screaming “must have”. Add in the reserve listing and you can see why this sits in the smaller-value bucket.

Post-match note

Tigers won 22-16. This was always more of a speculative price play than a ‘build your multis around it’ type of leg.

Footylab verdict

Fair, aligned. No strong signal here: Footylab rates him 8.7% to score and 16.00 implies 6.25% (a +2.4 point gap, well under the 5-point trigger).

What would need to happen

For a reserve middle at this kind of price, the try usually comes from a messy game: repeat sets, goal-line fatigue, and the right body in the right lane. The opponent weakness component is decent, but the opportunity and recent form indicators are more “maybe” than “go”.

Footylab verdict

Value, strong. Footylab has him at 19.5% to score, while 16.00 implies 6.25% (a +13.3 point edge, strong by the 10-point rule). That’s a big overlay if he’s actually in the 17 and gets a workable stint.

Selection and minutes are the whole story

Unlike the flashy backs, this is a pure role bet. If he’s promoted and plays enough minutes around the ruck, the model sees a realistic chance of a short-range try. The base scoring rate is respectable for the type, and the opponent weakness rating gives the “crash over” path some oxygen.

Footylab verdict

Ripoff, strong. Greg Marzhew was priced like a near lock (about 69% implied), but Footylab had him closer to 32% (a -38 point gap). That’s a huge mismatch and easily clears the 10-point ‘strong’ ripoff threshold.

What happened on the night

The Knights won 28-22, so yes, tries were scored. But that’s the trap with these ultra-short ATS prices: even in a good attacking game, you still need the right player to finish, and the market was charging as if it was basically guaranteed.

Footylab verdict

Ripoff, strong. Dominic Young lands in the same bucket as Marzhew: the odds implied about a 68% chance, while Footylab had him around 31% (roughly -37 points). That’s a strong ripoff by the rule.

Why this happens with wingers

Wingers are the easiest players for the market to overprice when a team is expected to score points. But tries don’t come with name tags. Even in games where the Knights put on a few, the ball can go the other edge, the fullback can slice through, or the try can come off a kick.