The model missed the final outcome (AB Copenhagen win 3–0).
The model had projected Esbjerg at 35.6%, 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 No No ✔ Correct
- 1X2 Esbjerg AB Copenhagen ✖ Incorrect
- Correct Score Insights 1-1, 0-1, 1-0, 1-2, 2-1 3-0 ✖ Incorrect
Model vs Closing Market
| Outcome | Model | Closing Market | Difference | Signal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AB Copenhagen | 34.7% | 46.7% | -12.0 pp | Market Higher |
| Draw | 29.6% | 23.3% | +6.4 pp | Model Higher |
| Esbjerg | 35.6% | 30.0% | +5.6 pp | Model Higher |
The closing market estimates AB Copenhagen's win probability at 46.7%, compared with the model's estimate of 34.7%, a difference of 12.0 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 AB Copenhagen win 3–0.
Market Assessment
The market is materially more optimistic about AB Copenhagen 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
- Expected goals projected a high-scoring match (ΣxG 2.60) — 3 goals materialised
- Both Teams To Score (No) matched the full-time result
What failed
- Over / Under 2.5: model leaned Under 2.5; match finished Over 2.5 (3 goals)
- 1X2: model leaned Esbjerg; match finished AB Copenhagen
Market lesson
The closing market differed from the model on Esbjerg by 12.0 percentage points (47.6% vs model 35.6%) — in this case the market view proved closer.
Prediction Timeline
How this prediction moved from forecast to full-time review.
-
Sep 19, 2026 · 11:55 UTC Forecast generated
- Model 1X2 · AB Copenhagen 34.7% · Draw 29.7% · Esbjerg 35.6%
- xG · AB Copenhagen 1.29 — Esbjerg 1.31
-
Sep 19, 2026 · 11:32 UTC Opening odds snapshot PRE30
- 1X2 odds · AB Copenhagen 2.04 · Draw 4.09 · Esbjerg 3.17
- Implied 1X2 · AB Copenhagen 46.7% · Draw 23.3% · Esbjerg 30.0%
- Bookmaker · Pinnacle
-
Sep 19, 2026 · 11:55 UTC Closing snapshot recorded PRE5
- 1X2 odds · AB Copenhagen 2.04 · Draw 4.09 · Esbjerg 3.17
- Implied 1X2 · AB Copenhagen 46.7% · Draw 23.3% · Esbjerg 30.0%
- Bookmaker · Pinnacle
-
Sep 19, 2026 · 12:00 UTC Kickoff
-
FT Full-time result AB Copenhagen win · 3–0
-
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: Warning
- Large market gap (12 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 AB Copenhagen & Esbjerg!
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 |
