AI correctly predicted the Khimik Dzerzhinsk win.
The match finished 0–4, 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 (4 goals) ✖ Incorrect
- Both Teams To Score BTTS Yes No ✖ Incorrect
- 1X2 Khimik Dzerzhinsk Khimik Dzerzhinsk ✔ Correct
- Correct Score Insights 1-1, 0-1, 1-2, 0-2, 1-0 0-4 ✖ Incorrect
Model vs Closing Market
| Outcome | Model | Closing Market | Difference | Signal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dinamo Barnaul | 23.8% | 6.1% | +17.7 pp | Model Edge |
| Draw | 27.5% | 12.3% | +15.2 pp | Model Edge |
| Khimik Dzerzhinsk | 48.7% | 81.6% | -32.9 pp | Market Higher |
The closing market estimates Khimik Dzerzhinsk's win probability at 81.6%, compared with the model's estimate of 48.7%, a difference of 32.9 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 (Khimik Dzerzhinsk win 0–4).
Post Match Insights
What worked
- Expected goals projected a high-scoring match (ΣxG 2.60) — 4 goals materialised
- Khimik Dzerzhinsk attacking xG significantly stronger (1.49 vs 1.11)
What failed
- Both Teams To Score: model leaned BTTS Yes; match finished BTTS No
- Over / Under 2.5: model leaned Under 2.5; match finished Over 2.5 (4 goals)
Market lesson
Large model–market gaps do not automatically mean the market is right. Here the closing market priced Khimik Dzerzhinsk higher (81.6% vs model 48.7%, 32.9 pp), but the model's lean was validated (Khimik Dzerzhinsk win 0–4).
Prediction Timeline
How this prediction moved from forecast to full-time review.
-
Jul 26, 2026 · 19:22 UTC Forecast generated
- Model 1X2 · Dinamo Barnaul 23.7% · Draw 27.5% · Khimik Dzerzhinsk 48.7%
- xG · Dinamo Barnaul 1.11 — Khimik Dzerzhinsk 1.49
-
Jul 26, 2026 · 09:29 UTC Opening odds snapshot PRE30
- 1X2 odds · Dinamo Barnaul 14.75 · Draw 7.30 · Khimik Dzerzhinsk 1.10
- Implied 1X2 · Dinamo Barnaul 6.1% · Draw 12.3% · Khimik Dzerzhinsk 81.6%
- Bookmaker · Marathonbet
-
Jul 26, 2026 · 10:00 UTC Closing snapshot recorded PRE1
- 1X2 odds · Dinamo Barnaul 14.75 · Draw 7.30 · Khimik Dzerzhinsk 1.10
- Implied 1X2 · Dinamo Barnaul 6.1% · Draw 12.3% · Khimik Dzerzhinsk 81.6%
- Bookmaker · Marathonbet
-
Jul 26, 2026 · 10:00 UTC Kickoff
-
FT Full-time result Khimik Dzerzhinsk win · 0–4
-
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.
Historical label: Originally displayed as "Wait for validation".
Pre-match metrics (historical context)
- Validation: Fail
- Large market gap (33 pp)
- No strong statistical edge
- Market strongly disagrees on price
- Validation failed
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 Dinamo Barnaul & Khimik Dzerzhinsk!
Unlock in-depth analysis, exclusive betting tips, and match forecasts with our premium subscription service.
Subscribe Now
Second League - Group 4 — Standings
| # | TEAM | MP | W | D | L | PTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Khimik Dzerzhinsk | 22 | 18 | 2 | 2 | 56 |
| 2 | KDV | 22 | 17 | 2 | 3 | 53 |
| 3 | Pobeda Nizhniy Novgorod | 22 | 13 | 4 | 5 | 43 |
| 4 | Akron II | 22 | 10 | 2 | 10 | 32 |
| 5 | Krylya Sovetov II | 22 | 6 | 9 | 7 | 27 |
| 6 | Dinamo Barnaul | 22 | 7 | 5 | 10 | 26 |
| 7 | Orenburg II | 22 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 26 |
| 8 | Izhevsk | 22 | 5 | 8 | 9 | 23 |
| 9 | Ural II | 22 | 5 | 7 | 10 | 22 |
| 10 | Rubin Kazan 2 | 22 | 4 | 8 | 10 | 20 |
| 11 | Nosta | 22 | 4 | 6 | 12 | 18 |
| 12 | Chelyabinsk II | 22 | 4 | 5 | 13 | 17 |
| # | TEAM | MP | GS | GC | +/- | PTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Khimik Dzerzhinsk | 22 | 57 | 16 | +41 | 56 |
| 2 | Pobeda Nizhniy Novgorod | 22 | 51 | 33 | +18 | 43 |
| 3 | Akron II | 22 | 46 | 34 | +12 | 32 |
| 4 | KDV | 22 | 40 | 20 | +20 | 53 |
| 5 | Ural II | 22 | 34 | 44 | -10 | 22 |
| 6 | Orenburg II | 22 | 31 | 35 | -4 | 26 |
| 7 | Dinamo Barnaul | 22 | 31 | 50 | -19 | 26 |
| 8 | Izhevsk | 22 | 30 | 32 | -2 | 23 |
| 9 | Krylya Sovetov II | 22 | 25 | 26 | -1 | 27 |
| 10 | Rubin Kazan 2 | 22 | 25 | 35 | -10 | 20 |
| 11 | Nosta | 22 | 20 | 48 | -28 | 18 |
| 12 | Chelyabinsk II | 22 | 19 | 36 | -17 | 17 |
