Prediction Audit: Moss vs Raufoss Prediction, Odds & AI Betting Tips

Jul 26, 2026 - 15:00
1 1.32
2 1.28
xG Accuracy: 75%

The model missed the final outcome (Raufoss win 1–2).

The model had projected Moss at 42.3%, 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 Under 2.5 Over 2.5 (3 goals) ✖ Incorrect
  • Both Teams To Score BTTS Yes Yes ✔ Correct
  • 1X2 Moss Raufoss ✖ Incorrect
  • Correct Score Insights 1-1, 1-0, 0-1, 2-1, 1-2 1-2 ✔ Correct

Model vs Closing Market

Strong Disagreement

The closing market prices Moss higher than the statistical model.

Largest probability gap: Moss -14.7 pp

Outcome Model Closing Market Difference Signal
Moss 42.3% 57.0% -14.7 pp Market Higher
Draw 27.8% 23.8% +4.1 pp Aligned
Raufoss 29.8% 19.2% +10.6 pp Model Edge

The closing market estimates Moss's win probability at 57.0%, compared with the model's estimate of 42.3%, a difference of 14.7 percentage points. This highlights a disagreement between the model and market consensus, without indicating which view is ultimately correct.

Model probabilities are generated from the statistical xG model using a Poisson distribution. Closing market probabilities are derived from consensus closing 1X2 odds after margin removal. Values represent implied probabilities rather than betting recommendations. Closing snapshot: PRE5.

After full time, the result was Raufoss win 1–2.

Market Assessment

The market is materially more optimistic about Moss than the current fair estimate.

  • Investors may be incorporating information not fully reflected in the baseline model.
  • Tournament-specific context can shift market pricing.

Post Match Insights

What worked

  • Expected goals projected a high-scoring match (ΣxG 2.60) — 3 goals materialised
  • Both Teams To Score (Yes) matched the full-time result
  • Exact score 1–2 fell within the model's highlighted bins

What failed

  • Over / Under 2.5: model leaned Under 2.5; match finished Over 2.5 (3 goals)
  • 1X2: model leaned Moss; match finished Raufoss

Market lesson

The closing market differed from the model on Moss by 14.7 percentage points (57.0% vs model 42.3%) — in this case the market view proved closer.

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.

  1. Jul 26, 2026 · 19:49 UTC Forecast generated
    • Model 1X2 · Moss 42.3% · Draw 27.8% · Raufoss 29.8%
    • xG · Moss 1.32 — Raufoss 1.28
  2. Jul 26, 2026 · 14:33 UTC Opening odds snapshot PRE30
    • 1X2 odds · Moss 1.67 · Draw 4.01 · Raufoss 4.96
    • Implied 1X2 · Moss 57.0% · Draw 23.8% · Raufoss 19.2%
    • Bookmaker · Pinnacle
  3. Jul 26, 2026 · 14:56 UTC Closing snapshot recorded PRE5
    • 1X2 odds · Moss 1.67 · Draw 4.01 · Raufoss 4.96
    • Implied 1X2 · Moss 57.0% · Draw 23.8% · Raufoss 19.2%
    • Bookmaker · Pinnacle
  4. Jul 26, 2026 · 15:00 UTC Kickoff
  5. FT Full-time result Raufoss win · 1–2
  6. FT Prediction missed 1X2 lean did not match full-time result
  7. Archived Prediction review

Historical Snapshot

Frozen at kickoff — the model output as it stood before the match started.

Historical verdict: Monitor
Historical Decision Monitor
Outcome Missed
Pre-match metrics (historical context)
Prediction Reliability 56/100 · Moderate
  • Validation: Warning
  • Large market gap (15 pp)
Evidence ★★★★★
  • No strong statistical edge
  • Market has already priced much of the edge
  • Validation warning
Pricing proximity (inverse gap) 26/100
Betting Confidence 44/100

Validation Report

Immutable Snapshot

Prediction Time: Jul 23, 2026 · 13:56 UTC Snapshot ID: dp-1453127

Closing Odds 1.67
AI Fair Odds —
CLV Pending
Final Result Raufoss win · Moss 1–2 Raufoss
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.

AI match briefing

AI Match Summary

Pre-match snapshot for this fixture.

  • League: Norwegian 1st Division
  • Fixture: Moss vs Raufoss
  • Kickoff: 2026-07-26 15:00:00
  • 1X2 (model): Home 10.0% · Draw 45.0% · Away 45.0%
  • xG (showing): Moss 1.32 — Raufoss 1.28 (total xG ≈ 2.6)
  • Value headline: None — no positive EV could be estimated on tracked lines at current best prices (missing odds or thin book depth).
  • Structural leans (not bets): See the Over/Under and BTTS cards for any directional lean text.
  • BTTS (model): Yes N/A · No N/A
  • Correct score (top bin): N/A

When book depth is thin or odds are missing, EV may be unavailable even though the model still prefers one side on totals or BTTS — wait for cleaner prices or skip.

Prefer skipping to over-staking when the engine is honest about missing edge.

Historical Recommendation

Historical Decision: Monitor

Outcome: Missed — Pre-match 1X2 lean did not match the full-time result.

Risk Factors Considered Before Kickoff

  • Price movement: implied probabilities and EV move with odds.
  • Sample / data gaps: low-information leagues widen forecast bands.
  • In-play state: goals and red cards are not modelled here.
  • Scoreline variance: the most likely scoreline is still usually a low absolute probability outcome (often well below 20%).

Last Updated

September 28, 2026 (UTC)

Get Premium Predictions for Moss & Raufoss!

Unlock in-depth analysis, exclusive betting tips, and match forecasts with our premium subscription service.

Subscribe Now
Back to Predictions
1. Division 1. Division — Standings
# TEAM MP W D L PTS
1 Haugesund 23 17 1 5 52
2 Kongsvinger 23 15 5 3 50
3 Stromsgodset 23 14 6 3 48
4 Stabaek 23 14 3 6 45
5 ODD Ballklubb 23 10 6 7 36
6 Bryne 23 11 2 10 35
7 hodd 23 10 4 9 34
8 Egersund 23 8 5 10 29
9 Ranheim 23 8 4 11 28
10 Lyn 23 8 4 11 28
11 Moss 23 7 4 12 25
12 Strommen 23 7 4 12 25
13 Sandnes ULF 23 7 3 13 24
14 Sogndal 23 6 5 12 23
15 Asane 23 5 5 13 20
16 Raufoss 23 6 1 16 19
# TEAM MP GS GC +/- PTS
1 Haugesund 23 72 39 +33 52
2 Kongsvinger 23 68 35 +33 50
3 Stromsgodset 23 60 31 +29 48
4 Stabaek 23 57 29 +28 45
5 Ranheim 23 56 58 -2 28
6 ODD Ballklubb 23 47 36 +11 36
7 Lyn 23 39 48 -9 28
8 hodd 23 38 45 -7 34
9 Moss 23 38 52 -14 25
10 Sogndal 23 38 53 -15 23
11 Egersund 23 36 44 -8 29
12 Strommen 23 35 52 -17 25
13 Asane 23 34 52 -18 20
14 Bryne 23 32 31 +1 35
15 Sandnes ULF 23 32 42 -10 24
16 Raufoss 23 26 61 -35 19