The model missed the final outcome (Adamstown Rosebuds win 2–3).
The model had projected Belmont Swansea at 37.1%, but the full-time result went the other way.
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 (5 goals) ✖ Incorrect
- Both Teams To Score BTTS Yes Yes ✔ Correct
- 1X2 Belmont Swansea Adamstown Rosebuds ✖ Incorrect
- Correct Score Insights 1-1, 1-0, 0-1, 2-1, 1-2 2-3 ✖ Incorrect
Model vs Closing Market
| Outcome | Model | Closing Market | Difference | Signal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Belmont Swansea | 37.1% | 36.6% | +0.4 pp | Aligned |
| Draw | 29.6% | 20.9% | +8.7 pp | Model Higher |
| Adamstown Rosebuds | 33.3% | 42.5% | -9.2 pp | Market Higher |
The closing market estimates Adamstown Rosebuds's win probability at 42.5%, compared with the model's estimate of 33.3%, a difference of 9.2 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 result was Adamstown Rosebuds win 2–3.
Market Assessment
The market and model broadly agree on Adamstown Rosebuds. The remaining divergence may reflect differences in team-strength assumptions rather than a directional disagreement.
- Monitor line movement before kickoff — not a betting recommendation.
Post Match Insights
What worked
- Expected goals projected a high-scoring match (ΣxG 2.60) — 5 goals materialised
- Both Teams To Score (Yes) matched the full-time result
What failed
- Over / Under 2.5: model leaned Under 2.5; match finished Over 2.5 (5 goals)
- 1X2: model leaned Belmont Swansea; match finished Adamstown Rosebuds
Market lesson
The closing market differed from the model on Belmont Swansea by 9.2 percentage points (46.3% vs model 37.1%) — in this case the market view proved closer.
Prediction Timeline
How this prediction moved from forecast to full-time review.
-
Aug 16, 2026 · 03:59 UTC Forecast generated
- Model 1X2 · Belmont Swansea 37.0% · Draw 29.6% · Adamstown Rosebuds 33.4%
- xG · Belmont Swansea 1.34 — Adamstown Rosebuds 1.26
-
Aug 16, 2026 · 03:29 UTC Opening odds snapshot PRE30
- 1X2 odds · Belmont Swansea 2.47 · Draw 4.33 · Adamstown Rosebuds 2.13
- Implied 1X2 · Belmont Swansea 36.6% · Draw 20.9% · Adamstown Rosebuds 42.5%
- Bookmaker · Pinnacle
-
Aug 16, 2026 · 03:59 UTC Closing snapshot recorded PRE1
- 1X2 odds · Belmont Swansea 2.47 · Draw 4.33 · Adamstown Rosebuds 2.13
- Implied 1X2 · Belmont Swansea 36.6% · Draw 20.9% · Adamstown Rosebuds 42.5%
- Bookmaker · Pinnacle
-
Aug 16, 2026 · 04:00 UTC Kickoff
-
FT Full-time result Adamstown Rosebuds win · 2–3
-
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.
Pre-match metrics (historical context)
- Validation: Pass
- No strong statistical edge
- Direction agrees with model lean
- Validation passed
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 Belmont Swansea & Adamstown Rosebuds!
Unlock in-depth analysis, exclusive betting tips, and match forecasts with our premium subscription service.
Subscribe Now
Northern NSW NPL — Standings
| # | TEAM | MP | W | D | L | PTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Broadmeadow Magic | 22 | 15 | 4 | 3 | 49 |
| 2 | Maitland | 22 | 13 | 3 | 6 | 42 |
| 3 | Weston Bears | 22 | 12 | 5 | 5 | 41 |
| 4 | Edgeworth Eagles | 22 | 11 | 6 | 5 | 39 |
| 5 | Belmont Swansea | 22 | 10 | 5 | 7 | 35 |
| 6 | Cooks Hill United | 22 | 9 | 6 | 7 | 33 |
| 7 | Valentine | 22 | 7 | 5 | 10 | 26 |
| 8 | Lambton Jaffas | 22 | 7 | 4 | 11 | 25 |
| 9 | Adamstown Rosebuds | 22 | 6 | 6 | 10 | 24 |
| 10 | Hamilton Olympic | 22 | 5 | 6 | 11 | 21 |
| 11 | Kahibah | 22 | 6 | 2 | 14 | 20 |
| 12 | Charlestown City Blues | 22 | 4 | 2 | 16 | 14 |
| # | TEAM | MP | GS | GC | +/- | PTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Broadmeadow Magic | 22 | 59 | 23 | +36 | 49 |
| 2 | Weston Bears | 22 | 48 | 33 | +15 | 41 |
| 3 | Belmont Swansea | 22 | 47 | 44 | +3 | 35 |
| 4 | Cooks Hill United | 22 | 43 | 36 | +7 | 33 |
| 5 | Edgeworth Eagles | 22 | 41 | 31 | +10 | 39 |
| 6 | Maitland | 22 | 40 | 32 | +8 | 42 |
| 7 | Hamilton Olympic | 22 | 39 | 40 | -1 | 21 |
| 8 | Lambton Jaffas | 22 | 38 | 33 | +5 | 25 |
| 9 | Kahibah | 22 | 35 | 53 | -18 | 20 |
| 10 | Adamstown Rosebuds | 22 | 34 | 45 | -11 | 24 |
| 11 | Charlestown City Blues | 22 | 25 | 62 | -37 | 14 |
| 12 | Valentine | 22 | 22 | 39 | -17 | 26 |
