AI correctly predicted the Tianjin Teda win.
The match finished 2–1, validating the model's directional assessment.
Tracked markets vs full-time result
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 Tianjin Teda Tianjin Teda ✔ Correct
- Correct Score Insights 1-0, 1-1, 2-0, 2-1, 0-0 2-1 ✔ Correct
Model vs Closing Market
| Outcome | Model | Closing Market | Difference | Signal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tianjin Teda | 46.7% | 36.2% | +10.4 pp | Model Edge |
| Draw | 29.4% | 26.2% | +3.2 pp | Aligned |
| Hangzhou Greentown | 23.9% | 37.6% | -13.7 pp | Market Higher |
The closing market estimates Hangzhou Greentown's win probability at 37.6%, compared with the model's estimate of 23.9%, a difference of 13.7 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: PRE1.
After full time, the model's directional lean matched the result (Tianjin Teda win 2–1).
Market Assessment
The market is materially more optimistic about Hangzhou Greentown 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
- Tianjin Teda attacking xG significantly stronger (1.48 vs 1.00)
- Both Teams To Score (Yes) matched the full-time result
- Exact score 2–1 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)
Market lesson
Large model–market gaps do not automatically mean the market is right. Here the closing market priced Tianjin Teda higher (60.4% vs model 46.7%, 13.7 pp), but the model's lean was validated (Tianjin Teda win 2–1).
Prediction Timeline
How this prediction moved from forecast to full-time review.
-
Sep 06, 2026 · 19:16 UTC Forecast generated
- Model 1X2 · Tianjin Teda 46.7% · Draw 29.4% · Hangzhou Greentown 23.9%
- xG · Tianjin Teda 1.48 — Hangzhou Greentown 1.00
-
Sep 06, 2026 · 11:30 UTC Opening odds snapshot PRE30
- 1X2 odds · Tianjin Teda 2.66 · Draw 3.68 · Hangzhou Greentown 2.56
- Implied 1X2 · Tianjin Teda 36.2% · Draw 26.2% · Hangzhou Greentown 37.6%
- Bookmaker · Pinnacle
-
Sep 06, 2026 · 11:59 UTC Closing snapshot recorded PRE1
- 1X2 odds · Tianjin Teda 2.66 · Draw 3.68 · Hangzhou Greentown 2.56
- Implied 1X2 · Tianjin Teda 36.2% · Draw 26.2% · Hangzhou Greentown 37.6%
- Bookmaker · Pinnacle
-
Sep 06, 2026 · 12:00 UTC Kickoff
-
FT Full-time result Tianjin Teda win · 2–1
-
FT Prediction validated Directional lean matched full-time result
-
Archived Prediction review
Historical Snapshot
Frozen at kickoff — the model output as it stood before the match started.
Pre-match metrics (historical context)
- Validation: Warning
- Large market gap (14 pp)
- No strong statistical edge
- Market has already priced much of the edge
- Validation warning
Validation Report
Immutable SnapshotModel 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 Tianjin Teda & Hangzhou Greentown!
Unlock in-depth analysis, exclusive betting tips, and match forecasts with our premium subscription service.
Subscribe Now
Super League — Standings
| # | TEAM | MP | W | D | L | PTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Chengdu Better City | 26 | 15 | 7 | 4 | 52 |
| 2 | Dalian Zhixing | 26 | 12 | 4 | 10 | 40 |
| 3 | Beijing Guoan | 26 | 11 | 10 | 5 | 38 |
| 4 | Yunnan Yukun | 26 | 11 | 5 | 10 | 38 |
| 5 | Qingdao Youth Island | 26 | 8 | 14 | 4 | 38 |
| 6 | Shandong Luneng | 26 | 13 | 4 | 9 | 37 |
| 7 | SHANGHAI SIPG | 26 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 33 |
| 8 | Shanghai Shenhua | 26 | 12 | 5 | 9 | 31 |
| 9 | Chongqing Tongliang Long | 26 | 7 | 10 | 9 | 31 |
| 10 | Hangzhou Greentown | 26 | 10 | 6 | 10 | 31 |
| 11 | Sichuan Jiuniu | 26 | 8 | 4 | 14 | 28 |
| 12 | Henan Jianye | 26 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 27 |
| 13 | Shenyang Urban | 26 | 7 | 4 | 15 | 25 |
| 14 | Tianjin Teda | 26 | 9 | 8 | 9 | 25 |
| 15 | Wuhan Three Towns | 26 | 5 | 11 | 10 | 21 |
| 16 | Qingdao Jonoon | 26 | 6 | 3 | 17 | 14 |
| # | TEAM | MP | GS | GC | +/- | PTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Yunnan Yukun | 26 | 54 | 51 | +3 | 38 |
| 2 | Shanghai Shenhua | 26 | 52 | 46 | +6 | 31 |
| 3 | Chengdu Better City | 26 | 51 | 30 | +21 | 52 |
| 4 | Beijing Guoan | 26 | 49 | 33 | +16 | 38 |
| 5 | Shandong Luneng | 26 | 46 | 43 | +3 | 37 |
| 6 | Hangzhou Greentown | 26 | 45 | 43 | +2 | 31 |
| 7 | SHANGHAI SIPG | 26 | 40 | 33 | +7 | 33 |
| 8 | Wuhan Three Towns | 26 | 39 | 46 | -7 | 21 |
| 9 | Dalian Zhixing | 26 | 38 | 42 | -4 | 40 |
| 10 | Tianjin Teda | 26 | 36 | 32 | +4 | 25 |
| 11 | Sichuan Jiuniu | 26 | 34 | 45 | -11 | 28 |
| 12 | Shenyang Urban | 26 | 34 | 47 | -13 | 25 |
| 13 | Qingdao Jonoon | 26 | 34 | 53 | -19 | 14 |
| 14 | Henan Jianye | 26 | 33 | 35 | -2 | 27 |
| 15 | Qingdao Youth Island | 26 | 31 | 32 | -1 | 38 |
| 16 | Chongqing Tongliang Long | 26 | 27 | 32 | -5 | 31 |
| # | TEAM | MP | xG | xGC | +/- | PTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Beijing Guoan | 26 | 4.4 | 0.1 | +4.3 | 38 |
| 2 | Shenyang Urban | 26 | 2.8 | 0.8 | +2.0 | 25 |
| 3 | Tianjin Teda | 26 | 1.5 | 0.6 | +0.9 | 25 |
| 4 | Chengdu Better City | 26 | 2.1 | 1.5 | +0.6 | 52 |
| 5 | Qingdao Youth Island | 26 | 1.8 | 1.2 | +0.6 | 38 |
| 6 | Yunnan Yukun | 26 | 2.6 | 2.3 | +0.3 | 38 |
| 7 | Dalian Zhixing | 26 | 2.3 | 2.0 | +0.3 | 40 |
| 8 | Hangzhou Greentown | 26 | 1.7 | 1.5 | +0.2 | 31 |
| 9 | Shanghai Shenhua | 26 | 1.5 | 1.7 | -0.2 | 31 |
| 10 | Wuhan Three Towns | 26 | 2.0 | 2.3 | -0.3 | 21 |
| 11 | Qingdao Jonoon | 26 | 1.5 | 2.1 | -0.6 | 14 |
| 12 | SHANGHAI SIPG | 26 | 1.2 | 1.8 | -0.6 | 33 |
| 13 | Sichuan Jiuniu | 26 | 0.6 | 1.5 | -0.9 | 28 |
| 14 | Chongqing Tongliang Long | 26 | 0.8 | 2.8 | -2.0 | 31 |
| 15 | Shandong Luneng | 26 | 2.4 | 7.0 | -4.6 | 37 |
| 16 | Henan Jianye | 26 | — | — | — | 27 |