The model missed the final outcome (Cham win 2–1).
The model had projected Brühl at 36.6%, 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 Yes ✖ Incorrect
- 1X2 Brühl Cham ✖ Incorrect
- Correct Score Insights 1-1, 0-1, 1-0, 1-2, 2-1 2-1 ✔ Correct
Model vs Closing Market
| Outcome | Model | Closing Market | Difference | Signal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cham | 33.8% | 40.9% | -7.1 pp | Market Higher |
| Draw | 29.6% | 25.6% | +4.1 pp | Aligned |
| Brühl | 36.6% | 33.5% | +3.0 pp | Aligned |
The closing market estimates Cham's win probability at 40.9%, compared with the model's estimate of 33.8%, a difference of 7.1 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 Cham win 2–1.
Market Assessment
The market and model broadly agree on Cham. The remaining divergence may reflect differences in team-strength assumptions rather than a directional disagreement.
- Monitor line movement before kickoff — not a betting recommendation.
Post Match Insights
What worked
- Expected goals projected a high-scoring match (ΣxG 2.60) — 3 goals materialised
- Exact score 2–1 fell within the model's highlighted bins
What failed
- Both Teams To Score: model leaned BTTS No; match finished BTTS Yes
- Over / Under 2.5: model leaned Under 2.5; match finished Over 2.5 (3 goals)
Market lesson
The closing market differed from the model on Brühl by 7.1 percentage points (43.7% vs model 36.6%) — in this case the market view proved closer.
Prediction Timeline
How this prediction moved from forecast to full-time review.
-
Sep 19, 2026 · 14:06 UTC Forecast generated
- Model 1X2 · Cham 33.8% · Draw 29.6% · Brühl 36.6%
- xG · Cham 1.27 — Brühl 1.33
-
Sep 19, 2026 · 13:42 UTC Opening odds snapshot PRE30
- 1X2 odds · Cham 2.24 · Draw 3.58 · Brühl 2.73
- Implied 1X2 · Cham 40.9% · Draw 25.6% · Brühl 33.5%
- Bookmaker · Pinnacle
-
Sep 19, 2026 · 14:06 UTC Closing snapshot recorded PRE5
- 1X2 odds · Cham 2.24 · Draw 3.58 · Brühl 2.73
- Implied 1X2 · Cham 40.9% · Draw 25.6% · Brühl 33.5%
- Bookmaker · Pinnacle
-
Sep 19, 2026 · 14:00 UTC Kickoff
-
FT Full-time result Cham win · 2–1
-
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: Pass
- No strong statistical edge
- Direction agrees with model lean
- Validation passed
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 Cham & Brühl!
Unlock in-depth analysis, exclusive betting tips, and match forecasts with our premium subscription service.
Subscribe Now
1. Liga Promotion — Standings
| # | TEAM | MP | W | D | L | PTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Biel-Bienne | 9 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 22 |
| 2 | FC Schaffhausen | 9 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 19 |
| 3 | Cham | 9 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 19 |
| 4 | Grand-Saconnex | 9 | 6 | 0 | 3 | 18 |
| 5 | Bulle | 9 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 17 |
| 6 | Paradiso | 9 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 16 |
| 7 | YF Juventus | 9 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 13 |
| 8 | Amical Saint-Prex | 9 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 13 |
| 9 | Basel II | 9 | 4 | 0 | 5 | 12 |
| 10 | Brühl | 9 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 11 |
| 11 | Young Boys II | 9 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 11 |
| 12 | Zürich II | 9 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 11 |
| 13 | Breitenrain | 8 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 10 |
| 14 | Kreuzlingen | 9 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 9 |
| 15 | Lugano II | 9 | 3 | 0 | 6 | 9 |
| 16 | Bavois | 9 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 8 |
| 17 | Luzern II | 9 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 7 |
| 18 | Bellinzona | 8 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 4 |
| # | TEAM | MP | GS | GC | +/- | PTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Biel-Bienne | 9 | 21 | 9 | +12 | 22 |
| 2 | Paradiso | 9 | 19 | 9 | +10 | 16 |
| 3 | Grand-Saconnex | 9 | 19 | 13 | +6 | 18 |
| 4 | Bulle | 9 | 18 | 12 | +6 | 17 |
| 5 | Young Boys II | 9 | 17 | 21 | -4 | 11 |
| 6 | Basel II | 9 | 16 | 17 | -1 | 12 |
| 7 | FC Schaffhausen | 9 | 15 | 10 | +5 | 19 |
| 8 | Lugano II | 9 | 15 | 21 | -6 | 9 |
| 9 | Cham | 9 | 14 | 9 | +5 | 19 |
| 10 | Zürich II | 9 | 14 | 18 | -4 | 11 |
| 11 | YF Juventus | 9 | 13 | 14 | -1 | 13 |
| 12 | Luzern II | 9 | 13 | 16 | -3 | 7 |
| 13 | Amical Saint-Prex | 9 | 13 | 20 | -7 | 13 |
| 14 | Brühl | 9 | 12 | 12 | 0 | 11 |
| 15 | Bavois | 9 | 10 | 11 | -1 | 8 |
| 16 | Breitenrain | 8 | 10 | 13 | -3 | 10 |
| 17 | Kreuzlingen | 9 | 10 | 13 | -3 | 9 |
| 18 | Bellinzona | 8 | 5 | 16 | -11 | 4 |
