The model missed the final outcome (Fleetwood Town win 0–1).
The model had projected Chesterfield at 39.0%, 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 Under 2.5 (1 goals) ✔ Correct
- Both Teams To Score BTTS Yes No ✖ Incorrect
- 1X2 Chesterfield Fleetwood Town ✖ Incorrect
- Correct Score Insights 1-1, 1-0, 0-1, 2-1, 1-2 0-1 ✔ Correct
Model vs Closing Market
| Outcome | Model | Closing Market | Difference | Signal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chesterfield | 39.0% | 53.4% | -14.4 pp | Market Higher |
| Draw | 29.5% | 26.1% | +3.4 pp | Aligned |
| Fleetwood Town | 31.5% | 20.4% | +11.0 pp | Model Edge |
The closing market estimates Chesterfield's win probability at 53.4%, compared with the model's estimate of 39.0%, a difference of 14.4 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 result was Fleetwood Town win 0–1.
Market Assessment
The market is materially more optimistic about Chesterfield 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
- Exact score 0–1 fell within the model's highlighted bins
What failed
- Both Teams To Score: model leaned BTTS Yes; match finished BTTS No
- 1X2: model leaned Chesterfield; match finished Fleetwood Town
Market lesson
The closing market differed from the model on Chesterfield by 14.4 percentage points (53.5% vs model 39.0%) — in this case the market view proved closer.
Prediction Timeline
How this prediction moved from forecast to full-time review.
-
Aug 15, 2026 · 14:09 UTC Forecast generated
- Model 1X2 · Chesterfield 39.0% · Draw 29.5% · Fleetwood Town 31.5%
- xG · Chesterfield 1.38 — Fleetwood Town 1.22
-
Aug 15, 2026 · 13:42 UTC Opening odds snapshot PRE30
- 1X2 odds · Chesterfield 1.78 · Draw 3.64 · Fleetwood Town 4.65
- Implied 1X2 · Chesterfield 53.4% · Draw 26.1% · Fleetwood Town 20.4%
- Bookmaker · Pinnacle
-
Aug 15, 2026 · 14:09 UTC Closing snapshot recorded PRE1
- 1X2 odds · Chesterfield 1.78 · Draw 3.64 · Fleetwood Town 4.65
- Implied 1X2 · Chesterfield 53.4% · Draw 26.1% · Fleetwood Town 20.4%
- Bookmaker · Pinnacle
-
Aug 15, 2026 · 14:00 UTC Kickoff
-
FT Full-time result Fleetwood Town win · 0–1
-
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.
Pre-match metrics (historical context)
- Validation: Warning
- Large market gap (14 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 Chesterfield & Fleetwood Town!
Unlock in-depth analysis, exclusive betting tips, and match forecasts with our premium subscription service.
Subscribe Now
League Two — Standings
| # | TEAM | MP | W | D | L | PTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Barnet | 7 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 15 |
| 2 | Walsall | 7 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 13 |
| 3 | Grimsby | 7 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 13 |
| 4 | Gillingham | 7 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 12 |
| 5 | Cheltenham | 7 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 12 |
| 6 | Bristol Rovers | 7 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 12 |
| 7 | York | 7 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 11 |
| 8 | Chesterfield | 7 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 11 |
| 9 | Crewe | 7 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 11 |
| 10 | Tranmere | 7 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 10 |
| 11 | Fleetwood Town | 7 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 10 |
| 12 | Salford City | 7 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 10 |
| 13 | Swindon Town | 7 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 10 |
| 14 | Rotherham | 7 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 9 |
| 15 | Colchester | 7 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 9 |
| 16 | Oldham | 7 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 7 |
| 17 | Rochdale | 7 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 7 |
| 18 | Shrewsbury | 7 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 7 |
| 19 | Newport County | 7 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 6 |
| 20 | Exeter City | 7 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 6 |
| 21 | Accrington ST | 7 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 6 |
| 22 | Northampton | 7 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 6 |
| 23 | Port Vale | 7 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 |
| 24 | Crawley Town | 7 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 4 |
| # | TEAM | MP | GS | GC | +/- | PTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Barnet | 7 | 17 | 10 | +7 | 15 |
| 2 | Cheltenham | 7 | 14 | 11 | +3 | 12 |
| 3 | York | 7 | 13 | 10 | +3 | 11 |
| 4 | Bristol Rovers | 7 | 12 | 11 | +1 | 12 |
| 5 | Grimsby | 7 | 11 | 6 | +5 | 13 |
| 6 | Gillingham | 7 | 11 | 6 | +5 | 12 |
| 7 | Walsall | 7 | 10 | 4 | +6 | 13 |
| 8 | Chesterfield | 7 | 10 | 8 | +2 | 11 |
| 9 | Rotherham | 7 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 9 |
| 10 | Newport County | 7 | 10 | 11 | -1 | 6 |
| 11 | Accrington ST | 7 | 10 | 13 | -3 | 6 |
| 12 | Tranmere | 7 | 9 | 7 | +2 | 10 |
| 13 | Fleetwood Town | 7 | 8 | 7 | +1 | 10 |
| 14 | Salford City | 7 | 8 | 9 | -1 | 10 |
| 15 | Oldham | 7 | 8 | 9 | -1 | 7 |
| 16 | Colchester | 7 | 8 | 10 | -2 | 9 |
| 17 | Swindon Town | 7 | 8 | 11 | -3 | 10 |
| 18 | Crewe | 7 | 7 | 5 | +2 | 11 |
| 19 | Rochdale | 7 | 7 | 10 | -3 | 7 |
| 20 | Crawley Town | 7 | 6 | 13 | -7 | 4 |
| 21 | Shrewsbury | 7 | 5 | 11 | -6 | 7 |
| 22 | Exeter City | 7 | 4 | 5 | -1 | 6 |
| 23 | Northampton | 7 | 3 | 6 | -3 | 6 |
| 24 | Port Vale | 7 | 3 | 9 | -6 | 5 |
| # | TEAM | MP | xG | xGC | +/- | PTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Accrington ST | 7 | 3.0 | 0.5 | +2.5 | 6 |
| 2 | Walsall | 7 | 3.5 | 1.8 | +1.7 | 13 |
| 3 | Rotherham | 7 | 2.2 | 0.7 | +1.5 | 9 |
| 4 | Northampton | 7 | 1.6 | 0.3 | +1.3 | 6 |
| 5 | Barnet | 7 | 2.8 | 1.8 | +1.0 | 15 |
| 6 | Shrewsbury | 7 | 2.1 | 1.2 | +0.9 | 7 |
| 7 | Crewe | 7 | 1.7 | 0.8 | +0.9 | 11 |
| 8 | Grimsby | 7 | 1.9 | 1.1 | +0.8 | 13 |
| 9 | Oldham | 7 | 1.5 | 0.9 | +0.6 | 7 |
| 10 | Bristol Rovers | 7 | 2.0 | 1.6 | +0.4 | 12 |
| 11 | Fleetwood Town | 7 | 1.9 | 1.5 | +0.4 | 10 |
| 12 | York | 7 | 1.6 | 2.0 | -0.4 | 11 |
| 13 | Chesterfield | 7 | 1.5 | 1.9 | -0.4 | 11 |
| 14 | Port Vale | 7 | 0.9 | 1.5 | -0.6 | 5 |
| 15 | Exeter City | 7 | 1.1 | 1.9 | -0.8 | 6 |
| 16 | Tranmere | 7 | 1.2 | 2.1 | -0.9 | 10 |
| 17 | Crawley Town | 7 | 0.8 | 1.7 | -0.9 | 4 |
| 18 | Salford City | 7 | 1.8 | 2.8 | -1.0 | 10 |
| 19 | Swindon Town | 7 | 0.3 | 1.6 | -1.3 | 10 |
| 20 | Cheltenham | 7 | 0.7 | 2.2 | -1.5 | 12 |
| 21 | Gillingham | 7 | 1.8 | 3.5 | -1.7 | 12 |
| 22 | Colchester | 7 | 0.5 | 3.0 | -2.5 | 9 |
| 23 | Rochdale | 7 | — | — | — | 7 |
| 24 | Newport County | 7 | — | — | — | 6 |
