The model missed the final outcome (Ipswich Town W win 0–3).
The model had projected Birmingham City W at 41.8%, but the full-time result went the other way.
Tracked markets vs full-time result
Prediction grade
F
Each row compares the pre-match model lean to the full-time result.
- Market Prediction Result Outcome
- Over / Under 2.5 Over 2.5 Over 2.5 (3 goals) ✔ Correct
- Both Teams To Score BTTS Yes No ✖ Incorrect
- 1X2 Birmingham City W Ipswich Town W ✖ Incorrect
- Correct Score Insights 1-1, 1-0, 2-1, 0-1, 1-2 0-3 ✖ Incorrect
Post Match Insights
What worked
- Expected goals projected a high-scoring match (ΣxG 2.70) — 3 goals materialised
- Over 2.5 goals aligned with the xG profile
What failed
- Both Teams To Score: model leaned BTTS Yes; match finished BTTS No
- 1X2: model leaned Birmingham City W; match finished Ipswich Town W
Market lesson
The full-time result was Ipswich Town W win 0–3, which did not match the model's pre-match lean on 1X2.
Premium betting site stake: New users can use the promo code FHn2uDc1 to receive $100 cash.
Prediction Timeline
How this prediction moved from forecast to full-time review.
-
Before kickoff Forecast generated
- xG · Birmingham City W 1.45 — Ipswich Town W 1.25
-
Apr 26, 2026 · 13:00 UTC Kickoff
-
FT Full-time result Ipswich Town W win · 0–3
-
FT Prediction missed 1X2 lean did not match full-time result
-
Archived Prediction review
Historical Snapshot
Frozen at kickoff — the model output as it stood before the match started.
Historical verdict:
Observe
Historical Decision
No Primary Bet
Outcome
Missed
Pre-match metrics (historical context)
Prediction Reliability
57/100
· Moderate
- Validation: Pending
Evidence
★★★★★
- No strong statistical edge
- Market has already priced much of the edge
- Validation pending
Market Compatibility
100/100
Betting Confidence
59/100
Validation Report
Immutable Snapshot
Closing Odds
Pending
AI Fair Odds
—
CLV
Pending
Final Result
Ipswich Town W win · Birmingham City W 0–3 Ipswich Town W
Prediction
✖ Missed
Decision Grade
F
Model Performance
This prediction contributes to:
- Primary Bets ROI (180d): -100.0%
Review FAQ
- How accurate was the prediction?
- This page grades directional markets (1X2, Over/Under 2.5, BTTS) against the full-time result. The prediction grade reflects how many of those tracked markets matched reality.
- What does xG Accuracy measure?
- xG Accuracy compares the model's pre-match expected-goals profile to the actual scoreline — not whether every market hit. A strong directional review can coexist with a moderate xG accuracy score.
- Why wasn't the exact score predicted?
- Correct-score outcomes are low-probability tails even when the model reads the match profile well. We highlight top score bins for context; missing the exact line does not invalidate a directional review.
- Does this improve the AI record?
- Each finished match is logged in our validation pipeline. Aggregated hit rates and CLV studies are published separately — this page is the per-match audit trail.
Predictions are for informational purposes only. Always gamble responsibly and within your limits. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Explore More Predictions Content
Get Premium Predictions for Birmingham City W & Ipswich Town W!
Unlock in-depth analysis, exclusive betting tips, and match forecasts with our premium subscription service.
Subscribe Now
Women's Championship — Standings
| # | TEAM | MP | W | D | L | PTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Birmingham City W | 22 | 14 | 2 | 6 | 44 |
| 2 | Crystal Palace W | 22 | 13 | 5 | 4 | 44 |
| 3 | Charlton Athletic W | 22 | 12 | 6 | 4 | 42 |
| 4 | Bristol City W | 22 | 11 | 4 | 7 | 37 |
| 5 | Southampton W | 22 | 10 | 5 | 7 | 35 |
| 6 | Newcastle United W | 22 | 8 | 9 | 5 | 33 |
| 7 | Nottingham Forest W | 22 | 9 | 3 | 10 | 30 |
| 8 | Sunderland W | 22 | 6 | 6 | 10 | 24 |
| 9 | Ipswich Town W | 22 | 6 | 5 | 11 | 23 |
| 10 | Durham W | 22 | 5 | 7 | 10 | 22 |
| 11 | Sheffield United W | 22 | 4 | 6 | 12 | 18 |
| 12 | Portsmouth W | 22 | 4 | 2 | 16 | 14 |
| # | TEAM | MP | GS | GC | +/- | PTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bristol City W | 22 | 47 | 31 | +16 | 37 |
| 2 | Birmingham City W | 22 | 46 | 24 | +22 | 44 |
| 3 | Crystal Palace W | 22 | 44 | 26 | +18 | 44 |
| 4 | Southampton W | 22 | 44 | 26 | +18 | 35 |
| 5 | Newcastle United W | 22 | 32 | 25 | +7 | 33 |
| 6 | Charlton Athletic W | 22 | 31 | 21 | +10 | 42 |
| 7 | Sunderland W | 22 | 28 | 35 | -7 | 24 |
| 8 | Nottingham Forest W | 22 | 27 | 35 | -8 | 30 |
| 9 | Durham W | 22 | 27 | 35 | -8 | 22 |
| 10 | Ipswich Town W | 22 | 26 | 42 | -16 | 23 |
| 11 | Portsmouth W | 22 | 23 | 53 | -30 | 14 |
| 12 | Sheffield United W | 22 | 21 | 43 | -22 | 18 |
