Prediction Audit: Kjelsås vs Follo Prediction, Odds & AI Betting Tips

Sep 26, 2026 - 12:00
2 1.42
2 1.18
xG Accuracy: 68%

The model missed the final outcome (Draw 2–2).

The model had projected Kjelsås at 40.9%, 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 (4 goals) ✖ Incorrect
  • Both Teams To Score BTTS No Yes ✖ Incorrect
  • 1X2 Kjelsås Draw ✖ Incorrect
  • Correct Score Insights 1-1, 1-0, 2-1, 0-1, 2-0 2-2 ✖ Incorrect

Model vs Closing Market

Strong Disagreement

The closing market prices Kjelsås higher than the statistical model.

Largest probability gap: Kjelsås -35.8 pp

Outcome Model Closing Market Difference Signal
Kjelsås 40.9% 76.7% -35.8 pp Market Higher
Draw 29.4% 13.5% +15.9 pp Model Edge
Follo 29.7% 9.9% +19.8 pp Model Edge

The closing market estimates Kjelsås's win probability at 76.7%, compared with the model's estimate of 40.9%, a difference of 35.8 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 Draw 2–2.

Post Match Insights

What worked

  • Expected goals projected a high-scoring match (ΣxG 2.60) — 4 goals materialised

What failed

  • Both Teams To Score: model leaned BTTS No; match finished BTTS Yes
  • Over / Under 2.5: model leaned Under 2.5; match finished Over 2.5 (4 goals)

Market lesson

The closing market differed from the model on Kjelsås by 35.8 percentage points (76.7% vs model 40.9%) — 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. Sep 26, 2026 · 11:55 UTC Forecast generated
    • Model 1X2 · Kjelsås 41.0% · Draw 29.4% · Follo 29.6%
    • xG · Kjelsås 1.42 — Follo 1.18
  2. Sep 26, 2026 · 11:30 UTC Opening odds snapshot PRE30
    • 1X2 odds · Kjelsås 1.19 · Draw 6.78 · Follo 9.25
    • Implied 1X2 · Kjelsås 76.7% · Draw 13.5% · Follo 9.9%
    • Bookmaker · Pinnacle
  3. Sep 26, 2026 · 11:55 UTC Closing snapshot recorded PRE5
    • 1X2 odds · Kjelsås 1.19 · Draw 6.78 · Follo 9.25
    • Implied 1X2 · Kjelsås 76.7% · Draw 13.5% · Follo 9.9%
    • Bookmaker · Pinnacle
  4. Sep 26, 2026 · 12:00 UTC Kickoff
  5. FT Full-time result Draw · 2–2
  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: Cautious / Wait

Historical label: Originally displayed as "Wait for validation".

Historical Decision Wait
Outcome Missed
Pre-match metrics (historical context)
Prediction Reliability 31/100 · Low
  • Validation: Fail
  • Large market gap (36 pp)
Evidence ★★★★★
  • No strong statistical edge
  • Market strongly disagrees on price
  • Validation failed
Pricing proximity (inverse gap) 0/100
Monitoring Confidence 9/100

Validation Report

Immutable Snapshot

Prediction Time: Sep 21, 2026 · 00:55 UTC Snapshot ID: dp-10081663

Closing Odds 1.19
AI Fair Odds —
CLV Pending
Final Result Draw · Kjelsås 2–2 Follo
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

Model favours Kjelsås; market prices Kjelsås instead — inputs may be missing or stale.

  • Model: Kjelsås 1.42 xG vs Follo 1.18 → Kjelsås 40.9%
  • Market: Kjelsås ~76.7% implied
  • Validation failed — do not treat 1X2 EV as actionable.

Do not act on 1X2 value until validation passes. Structural leans (O/U, BTTS) need separate odds review.

Structural lean (model): O/U 2.5 Under 2.5 (Under 2.5 51.8% · Over 2.5 48.2%); BTTS No (Yes 54.1% · No 45.9%) Value lean (pricing): O/U 2.5 Under 2.5; BTTS No

Historical Recommendation

Historical Decision: Wait

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 29, 2026 (UTC)

Get Premium Predictions for Kjelsås & Follo!

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

Subscribe Now
Back to Predictions
2. Division - Group 2 2. Division - Group 2 — Standings
# TEAM MP W D L PTS
1 Eidsvold 20 15 3 2 48
2 Levanger 20 15 0 5 45
3 Kjelsås 21 14 2 5 44
4 Hønefoss 20 13 3 4 42
5 Grorud 20 11 4 5 37
6 Stjørdals-Blink 21 9 3 9 30
7 Lørenskog 20 9 3 8 30
8 Tromsdalen Uil 20 9 2 9 29
9 Junkeren 20 8 4 8 28
10 Rana 20 7 3 10 24
11 Skeid 20 5 2 13 17
12 Follo 21 3 5 13 14
13 Ull/Kisa 21 3 1 17 10
14 Trygg/Lade 20 2 3 15 9
# TEAM MP GS GC +/- PTS
1 Levanger 20 51 21 +30 45
2 Hønefoss 20 51 28 +23 42
3 Kjelsås 21 49 31 +18 44
4 Eidsvold 20 48 16 +32 48
5 Stjørdals-Blink 21 37 38 -1 30
6 Grorud 20 34 20 +14 37
7 Tromsdalen Uil 20 34 34 0 29
8 Rana 20 34 38 -4 24
9 Lørenskog 20 29 32 -3 30
10 Junkeren 20 29 33 -4 28
11 Skeid 20 27 43 -16 17
12 Follo 21 25 45 -20 14
13 Ull/Kisa 21 25 70 -45 10
14 Trygg/Lade 20 23 47 -24 9