Predictions / Football / Lithuania. 1 Lyga / Dainava vs BFA

Prediction Audit: Dainava vs BFA Prediction, Odds & AI Betting Tips

Dainava Dainava
Aug 15, 2026 - 15:00
0 1.24
0 1.36
xG Accuracy: 49%
BFA BFA

The model missed the final outcome (Draw 0–0).

The model had projected BFA at 38.0%, but the full-time result went the other way.

Tracked markets vs full-time result

Prediction grade F

Each row compares the pre-match model lean to the full-time result.

  • Market Prediction Result Outcome
  • Over / Under 2.5 Under 2.5 Under 2.5 (0 goals) ✔ Correct
  • Both Teams To Score BTTS Yes No ✖ Incorrect
  • 1X2 BFA Draw ✖ Incorrect
  • Correct Score Insights 1-1, 0-1, 1-0, 1-2, 2-1 0-0 ✖ Incorrect

Model vs Closing Market

Strong Disagreement

The closing market prices Dainava higher than the statistical model.

Largest probability gap: Dainava -19.2 pp

Outcome Model Closing Market Difference Signal
Dainava 32.4% 51.6% -19.2 pp Market Higher
Draw 29.6% 24.7% +4.9 pp Aligned
BFA 38.0% 23.7% +14.3 pp Model Edge

The closing market estimates Dainava's win probability at 51.6%, compared with the model's estimate of 32.4%, a difference of 19.2 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: PRE5.

After full time, the result was Draw 0–0.

Market Assessment

The market is materially more optimistic about Dainava 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

  • Under 2.5 goals aligned with the xG profile

What failed

  • Both Teams To Score: model leaned BTTS Yes; match finished BTTS No
  • 1X2: model leaned BFA; match finished Draw

Market lesson

The closing market differed from the model on BFA by 19.2 percentage points (57.2% vs model 38.0%) — in this case the market view proved closer.

Premium betting site stake: New users can use the promo code FHn2uDc1 to receive $100 cash.

Prediction Timeline

How this prediction moved from forecast to full-time review.

  1. Aug 15, 2026 · 14:56 UTC Forecast generated
    • Model 1X2 · Dainava 32.4% · Draw 29.6% · BFA 38.0%
    • xG · Dainava 1.24 — BFA 1.36
  2. Aug 15, 2026 · 14:32 UTC Opening odds snapshot PRE30
    • 1X2 odds · Dainava 1.90 · Draw 3.32 · BFA 3.35
    • Implied 1X2 · Dainava 46.7% · Draw 26.8% · BFA 26.5%
    • Bookmaker · Pinnacle
  3. Aug 15, 2026 · 14:56 UTC Closing snapshot recorded PRE5
    • 1X2 odds · Dainava 1.72 · Draw 3.59 · BFA 3.75
    • Implied 1X2 · Dainava 51.6% · Draw 24.7% · BFA 23.7%
    • Bookmaker · Pinnacle
  4. Aug 15, 2026 · 15:00 UTC Kickoff
  5. FT Full-time result Draw · 0–0
  6. FT Prediction missed 1X2 lean did not match full-time result
  7. Archived Prediction review

Historical Snapshot

Frozen at kickoff — the model output as it stood before the match started.

Historical verdict: Monitor
Historical Decision Monitor
Outcome Missed
Pre-match metrics (historical context)
Prediction Reliability 53/100 · Moderate
  • Validation: Warning
  • Large market gap (19 pp)
Evidence ★★★★★
  • No strong statistical edge
  • Pricing remains divergent
  • Validation warning
Pricing proximity (inverse gap) 1/100
Monitoring Confidence 18/100

Validation Report

Immutable Snapshot

Prediction Time: Aug 09, 2026 · 02:33 UTC Snapshot ID: dp-3358314

Closing Odds 1.72
AI Fair Odds —
CLV Pending
Final Result Draw · Dainava 0–0 BFA
Prediction ✖ Missed
Decision Grade F

Model 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.

AI match briefing

AI Match Summary

Below is a compact, numbers-first snapshot aligned with the same engine as the cards above.

  • League: 1 Lyga
  • Fixture: Dainava vs BFA
  • Kickoff: 2026-08-15 15:00:00
  • 1X2 (model): Home 32.4% · Draw 29.6% · Away 38.0%
  • xG (showing): Dainava 1.24 — BFA 1.36 (total xG ≈ 2.6)
  • Value headline: None (actionable) — best tracked EV is about +1.4%, still below the +2.0% minimum for a headline / default stake (no default bet).
  • Structural leans (not bets): Structural lean (model): O/U 2.5 Under 2.5 (Under 2.5 51.8% · Over 2.5 48.2%); BTTS Yes (Yes 54.4% · No 45.6%) Value lean (pricing): O/U 2.5 Under 2.5; BTTS Yes
  • BTTS (model): Yes 54.4% · No 45.6%
  • Correct score (top bin): 1-1 (12.5%)

The decision block shows no default Primary: Primary needs consensus EV ≥ +5.0% plus strength/reliability/calibration gates. A separate Lean/tracked gate is +2.0% (selective only). Lean labels are directional only — not bankroll-sized recommendations.

Prefer skipping to over-staking when the engine is honest about missing edge.

Historical Recommendation

Historical Decision: Monitor

Outcome: Missed — Pre-match 1X2 lean did not match the full-time result.

Risk Factors Considered Before Kickoff

  • Price movement: implied probabilities and EV move with odds.
  • Sample / data gaps: low-information leagues widen forecast bands.
  • In-play state: goals and red cards are not modelled here.
  • Scoreline variance: the most likely scoreline is still usually a low absolute probability outcome (often well below 20%).

Last Updated

September 28, 2026 (UTC)

Related Predictions

See Upcoming 1 Lyga Matches Track Dainava Next Match Prediction Track BFA Next Match Prediction View Today's Football Predictions

Get Premium Predictions for Dainava & BFA!

Unlock in-depth analysis, exclusive betting tips, and match forecasts with our premium subscription service.

Subscribe Now
Back to Predictions
1 Lyga 1 Lyga — Standings
# TEAM MP W D L PTS
1 Minija 24 21 1 2 64
2 Babrungas 25 19 4 2 61
3 Be1 NFA 24 16 2 6 50
4 Neptūną Klaipėda 25 14 2 9 44
5 Tauras 25 13 4 8 43
6 Žalgiris II 25 13 4 8 43
7 BFA 25 13 4 8 43
8 Dainava 24 11 7 6 40
9 Atmosfera 24 8 6 10 30
10 Jonava 25 7 6 12 27
11 Garliava 24 6 4 14 22
12 Kauno Žalgiris II 24 7 1 16 22
13 Hegelmann II 25 7 1 17 22
14 Transinvest 2 25 6 3 16 21
15 FA Šiauliai II 25 4 5 16 17
16 Ekranas 25 4 2 19 14
# TEAM MP GS GC +/- PTS
1 Minija 24 63 13 +50 64
2 Babrungas 25 43 11 +32 61
3 Be1 NFA 24 43 25 +18 50
4 Tauras 25 43 31 +12 43
5 BFA 25 39 35 +4 43
6 Žalgiris II 25 38 32 +6 43
7 Atmosfera 24 37 33 +4 30
8 Dainava 24 34 23 +11 40
9 Neptūną Klaipėda 25 33 30 +3 44
10 Hegelmann II 25 30 56 -26 22
11 Transinvest 2 25 29 58 -29 21
12 Jonava 25 28 33 -5 27
13 Garliava 24 27 30 -3 22
14 FA Šiauliai II 25 27 56 -29 17
15 Ekranas 25 25 58 -33 14
16 Kauno Žalgiris II 24 23 38 -15 22
1 Lyga Lithuania. 1 Lyga Predictions