The model missed the final outcome (Hobro win 1–2).
The model had projected Esbjerg at 38.5%, 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 (3 goals) ✖ Incorrect
- Both Teams To Score BTTS Yes Yes ✔ Correct
- 1X2 Esbjerg Hobro ✖ Incorrect
- Correct Score Insights 1-1, 1-0, 0-1, 2-1, 1-2 1-2 ✔ Correct
Model vs Closing Market
| Outcome | Model | Closing Market | Difference | Signal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Esbjerg | 38.5% | 44.0% | -5.5 pp | Market Higher |
| Draw | 29.6% | 25.4% | +4.1 pp | Aligned |
| Hobro | 31.9% | 30.6% | +1.4 pp | Aligned |
The closing market estimates Esbjerg's win probability at 44.0%, compared with the model's estimate of 38.5%, a difference of 5.5 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 Hobro win 1–2.
Market Assessment
The market and model broadly agree on Esbjerg. 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) — 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 Esbjerg; match finished Hobro
Market lesson
The closing market differed from the model on Esbjerg by 5.5 percentage points (44.0% vs model 38.5%) — in this case the market view proved closer.
Prediction Timeline
How this prediction moved from forecast to full-time review.
-
Aug 15, 2026 · 11:57 UTC Forecast generated
- Model 1X2 · Esbjerg 38.5% · Draw 29.6% · Hobro 31.9%
- xG · Esbjerg 1.37 — Hobro 1.23
-
Aug 15, 2026 · 11:32 UTC Opening odds snapshot PRE30
- 1X2 odds · Esbjerg 2.17 · Draw 3.75 · Hobro 3.12
- Implied 1X2 · Esbjerg 44.0% · Draw 25.4% · Hobro 30.6%
- Bookmaker · Pinnacle
-
Aug 15, 2026 · 11:57 UTC Closing snapshot recorded PRE5
- 1X2 odds · Esbjerg 2.17 · Draw 3.75 · Hobro 3.12
- Implied 1X2 · Esbjerg 44.0% · Draw 25.4% · Hobro 30.6%
- Bookmaker · Pinnacle
-
Aug 15, 2026 · 12:00 UTC Kickoff
-
FT Full-time result Hobro win · 1–2
-
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 Esbjerg & Hobro!
Unlock in-depth analysis, exclusive betting tips, and match forecasts with our premium subscription service.
Subscribe Now
1. Division — Standings
| # | TEAM | MP | W | D | L | PTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hvidovre | 9 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 21 |
| 2 | Vejle | 9 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 19 |
| 3 | FC Fredericia | 9 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 14 |
| 4 | Aarhus Fremad | 9 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 13 |
| 5 | Aalborg | 9 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 13 |
| 6 | Hobro | 9 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 13 |
| 7 | Vendsyssel FF | 9 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 10 |
| 8 | AB Copenhagen | 9 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 9 |
| 9 | Hillerød | 9 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 9 |
| 10 | Kolding IF | 9 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 8 |
| 11 | HB Koge | 9 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 7 |
| 12 | Esbjerg | 9 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 5 |
| # | TEAM | MP | GS | GC | +/- | PTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Vejle | 9 | 22 | 13 | +9 | 19 |
| 2 | Hvidovre | 9 | 18 | 9 | +9 | 21 |
| 3 | Hillerød | 9 | 13 | 14 | -1 | 9 |
| 4 | FC Fredericia | 9 | 12 | 6 | +6 | 14 |
| 5 | Hobro | 9 | 12 | 16 | -4 | 13 |
| 6 | AB Copenhagen | 9 | 11 | 10 | +1 | 9 |
| 7 | Aalborg | 9 | 11 | 11 | 0 | 13 |
| 8 | HB Koge | 9 | 11 | 17 | -6 | 7 |
| 9 | Aarhus Fremad | 9 | 10 | 9 | +1 | 13 |
| 10 | Kolding IF | 9 | 10 | 12 | -2 | 8 |
| 11 | Vendsyssel FF | 9 | 10 | 14 | -4 | 10 |
| 12 | Esbjerg | 9 | 10 | 19 | -9 | 5 |
