Prediction Audit: Oviedo vs Granada CF Prediction, Odds & AI Betting Tips

Aug 15, 2026 - 17:00
0 1.06
0 1.37
xG Accuracy: 51%

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

The model had projected Granada CF at 42.3%, 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 Granada CF Draw ✖ Incorrect
  • Correct Score Insights 1-1, 0-1, 1-0, 0-0, 1-2 0-0 ✔ Correct

Model vs Closing Market

Strong Disagreement

The closing market prices Oviedo higher than the statistical model.

Largest probability gap: Oviedo -19.5 pp

Outcome Model Closing Market Difference Signal
Oviedo 27.4% 46.9% -19.5 pp Market Higher
Draw 30.4% 28.9% +1.5 pp Aligned
Granada CF 42.3% 24.3% +18.0 pp Model Edge

The closing market estimates Oviedo's win probability at 46.9%, compared with the model's estimate of 27.4%, a difference of 19.5 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: PRE1.

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

Market Assessment

The market is materially more optimistic about Oviedo 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 0–0 fell within the model's highlighted bins

What failed

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

Market lesson

The closing market differed from the model on Granada CF by 19.5 percentage points (61.8% vs model 42.3%) — 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 · 17:00 UTC Forecast generated
    • Model 1X2 · Oviedo 27.4% · Draw 30.4% · Granada CF 42.2%
    • xG · Oviedo 1.06 — Granada CF 1.37
  2. Aug 15, 2026 · 16:31 UTC Opening odds snapshot PRE30
    • 1X2 odds · Oviedo 2.05 · Draw 3.33 · Granada CF 3.96
    • Implied 1X2 · Oviedo 46.9% · Draw 28.9% · Granada CF 24.3%
    • Bookmaker · Pinnacle
  3. Aug 15, 2026 · 17:00 UTC Closing snapshot recorded PRE1
    • 1X2 odds · Oviedo 2.05 · Draw 3.33 · Granada CF 3.96
    • Implied 1X2 · Oviedo 46.9% · Draw 28.9% · Granada CF 24.3%
    • Bookmaker · Pinnacle
  4. Aug 15, 2026 · 17:00 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 (20 pp)
Evidence ★★★★★
  • No strong statistical edge
  • Pricing remains divergent
  • Validation warning
Pricing proximity (inverse gap) 0/100
Monitoring Confidence 18/100

Validation Report

Immutable Snapshot

Prediction Time: Aug 09, 2026 · 03:04 UTC Snapshot ID: dp-3364595

Closing Odds 2.05
AI Fair Odds —
CLV Pending
Final Result Draw · Oviedo 0–0 Granada CF
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

Quick read on how the model reads this matchup.

  • League: Segunda División
  • Fixture: Oviedo vs Granada CF
  • Kickoff: 2026-08-15 17:00:00
  • 1X2 (model): Home 27.4% · Draw 30.4% · Away 42.2%
  • xG (showing): Oviedo 1.06 — Granada CF 1.37 (total xG ≈ 2.43)
  • Best +EV line (same label as hero card when Primary thresholds are not met): Granada CF
  • Model: 42.2% · Implied: 24.3% · Probability edge: +17.9 pts · Est. EV: +11.7%
  • BTTS (model): Yes 50.4% · No 49.6%
  • Correct score (top bin): 1-1 (12.8%)

Where EV is shown, it is estimated return per unit stake at the best tracked decimal price — not the same thing as a raw probability gap.

1X2 can look balanced even when side markets show clearer structure.

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

October 02, 2026 (UTC)

Get Premium Predictions for Oviedo & Granada CF!

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

Subscribe Now
Back to Predictions
Segunda División Segunda División — Standings
# TEAM MP W D L PTS
1 Castellón 6 5 1 0 16
2 Eibar 6 5 0 1 15
3 Girona 7 4 1 2 13
4 Mallorca 6 4 1 1 13
5 Almeria 6 4 0 2 12
6 Sabadell 7 3 3 1 12
7 Burgos 6 3 2 1 11
8 Leganes 6 3 2 1 11
9 Tenerife 7 3 2 2 11
10 Sporting Gijon 6 3 1 2 10
11 Las Palmas 6 3 1 2 10
12 Oviedo 6 2 2 2 8
13 Granada CF 7 2 2 3 8
14 Real Sociedad II 7 2 2 3 8
15 Celta de Vigo II 7 2 2 3 8
16 FC Andorra 7 2 0 5 6
17 Cordoba 6 2 0 4 6
18 Eldense 6 1 2 3 5
19 Valladolid 6 1 2 3 5
20 Cadiz 7 0 4 3 4
21 AD Ceuta FC 7 1 1 5 4
22 Albacete 7 0 1 6 1
# TEAM MP GS GC +/- PTS
1 Girona 7 14 8 +6 13
2 Castellón 6 12 2 +10 16
3 Eibar 6 12 4 +8 15
4 FC Andorra 7 12 15 -3 6
5 Almeria 6 10 4 +6 12
6 Burgos 6 10 7 +3 11
7 Granada CF 7 10 11 -1 8
8 Real Sociedad II 7 9 10 -1 8
9 Cordoba 6 9 13 -4 6
10 Mallorca 6 8 2 +6 13
11 Sabadell 7 8 6 +2 12
12 Las Palmas 6 8 8 0 10
13 Tenerife 7 8 9 -1 11
14 Celta de Vigo II 7 8 11 -3 8
15 Cadiz 7 7 10 -3 4
16 Leganes 6 6 5 +1 11
17 AD Ceuta FC 7 6 17 -11 4
18 Sporting Gijon 6 5 4 +1 10
19 Oviedo 6 5 4 +1 8
20 Eldense 6 4 8 -4 5
21 Albacete 7 4 12 -8 1
22 Valladolid 6 3 8 -5 5
# TEAM MP xG xGC +/- PTS
1 Cadiz 7 1.6 0.6 +1.0 4
2 Celta de Vigo II 7 0.6 1.6 -1.0 8
3 Castellón 6 — — — 16
4 Eibar 6 — — — 15
5 Girona 7 — — — 13
6 Mallorca 6 — — — 13
7 Almeria 6 — — — 12
8 Sabadell 7 — — — 12
9 Burgos 6 — — — 11
10 Leganes 6 — — — 11
11 Tenerife 7 — — — 11
12 Sporting Gijon 6 — — — 10
13 Las Palmas 6 — — — 10
14 Oviedo 6 — — — 8
15 Granada CF 7 — — — 8
16 Real Sociedad II 7 — — — 8
17 FC Andorra 7 — — — 6
18 Cordoba 6 — — — 6
19 Eldense 6 — — — 5
20 Valladolid 6 — — — 5
21 AD Ceuta FC 7 — — — 4
22 Albacete 7 — — — 1