The model missed the final outcome (Hamilton Academical win 4–1).
The model had projected Queen of the South 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 Queen of the South Hamilton Academical ✖ Incorrect
- Correct Score Insights 1-1, 0-1, 1-0, 1-2, 2-1 4-1 ✖ Incorrect
Model vs Closing Market
| Outcome | Model | Closing Market | Difference | Signal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hamilton Academical | 33.3% | 71.8% | -38.5 pp | Market Higher |
| Draw | 29.6% | 17.4% | +12.2 pp | Model Edge |
| Queen of the South | 37.1% | 10.8% | +26.3 pp | Model Edge |
The closing market estimates Hamilton Academical's win probability at 71.8%, compared with the model's estimate of 33.3%, a difference of 38.5 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 Hamilton Academical win 4–1.
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 Queen of the South; match finished Hamilton Academical
Market lesson
The closing market differed from the model on Queen of the South by 38.5 percentage points (75.6% vs model 37.1%) — in this case the market view proved closer.
Prediction Timeline
How this prediction moved from forecast to full-time review.
-
Sep 19, 2026 · 13:58 UTC Forecast generated
- Model 1X2 · Hamilton Academical 33.4% · Draw 29.6% · Queen of the South 37.0%
- xG · Hamilton Academical 1.26 — Queen of the South 1.34
-
Sep 19, 2026 · 13:35 UTC Opening odds snapshot PRE30
- 1X2 odds · Hamilton Academical 1.28 · Draw 5.29 · Queen of the South 8.54
- Implied 1X2 · Hamilton Academical 71.8% · Draw 17.4% · Queen of the South 10.8%
- Bookmaker · Pinnacle
-
Sep 19, 2026 · 13:58 UTC Closing snapshot recorded PRE5
- 1X2 odds · Hamilton Academical 1.28 · Draw 5.29 · Queen of the South 8.54
- Implied 1X2 · Hamilton Academical 71.8% · Draw 17.4% · Queen of the South 10.8%
- Bookmaker · Pinnacle
-
Sep 19, 2026 · 14:00 UTC Kickoff
-
FT Full-time result Hamilton Academical win · 4–1
-
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.
Historical label: Originally displayed as "Wait for validation".
Pre-match metrics (historical context)
- Validation: Fail
- Large market gap (39 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 Hamilton Academical & Queen of the South!
Unlock in-depth analysis, exclusive betting tips, and match forecasts with our premium subscription service.
Subscribe Now
League One — Standings
| # | TEAM | MP | W | D | L | PTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ross County | 7 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 19 |
| 2 | Hamilton Academical | 7 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 19 |
| 3 | Montrose | 8 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 15 |
| 4 | East Kilbride | 8 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 13 |
| 5 | Alloa Athletic | 8 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 9 |
| 6 | Airdrie United | 8 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 9 |
| 7 | East Fife | 8 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 8 |
| 8 | Peterhead | 8 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 7 |
| 9 | Cove Rangers | 8 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 5 |
| 10 | Queen of the South | 8 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 4 |
| # | TEAM | MP | GS | GC | +/- | PTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ross County | 7 | 22 | 4 | +18 | 19 |
| 2 | Hamilton Academical | 7 | 16 | 1 | +15 | 19 |
| 3 | East Kilbride | 8 | 14 | 12 | +2 | 13 |
| 4 | Montrose | 8 | 13 | 13 | 0 | 15 |
| 5 | Alloa Athletic | 8 | 8 | 6 | +2 | 9 |
| 6 | East Fife | 8 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 8 |
| 7 | Airdrie United | 8 | 6 | 11 | -5 | 9 |
| 8 | Peterhead | 8 | 6 | 14 | -8 | 7 |
| 9 | Queen of the South | 8 | 6 | 24 | -18 | 4 |
| 10 | Cove Rangers | 8 | 5 | 11 | -6 | 5 |
