The model missed the final outcome (Tanjong Pagar win 3–4).
The model had projected Balestier Khalsa at 46.8%, 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 (7 goals) ✖ Incorrect
- Both Teams To Score BTTS No Yes ✖ Incorrect
- 1X2 Balestier Khalsa Tanjong Pagar ✖ Incorrect
- Correct Score Insights 1-1, 1-0, 2-1, 2-0, 0-1 3-4 ✖ Incorrect
Model vs Closing Market
| Outcome | Model | Closing Market | Difference | Signal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Balestier Khalsa | 46.8% | 55.9% | -9.1 pp | Market Higher |
| Draw | 28.6% | 18.4% | +10.2 pp | Model Edge |
| Tanjong Pagar | 24.5% | 25.7% | -1.2 pp | Aligned |
The statistical model estimates Draw's win probability at 28.6%, compared with the closing market's implied probability of 18.4%, a difference of 10.2 percentage points. This highlights a substantial disagreement between the model's assessment and the market consensus, rather than 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 Tanjong Pagar win 3–4.
Market Assessment
The statistical fair estimate is materially higher than the market on Draw.
- The model may see a slower-scoring or closer matchup than the market.
- Monitor line movement before kickoff — not a betting recommendation.
Post Match Insights
What worked
- Expected goals projected a high-scoring match (ΣxG 2.60) — 7 goals materialised
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 (7 goals)
Market lesson
The closing market differed from the model on Balestier Khalsa by 10.2 percentage points (36.5% vs model 46.8%) — in this case the market view proved closer.
Prediction Timeline
How this prediction moved from forecast to full-time review.
-
Sep 19, 2026 · 11:31 UTC Forecast generated
- Model 1X2 · Balestier Khalsa 46.8% · Draw 28.7% · Tanjong Pagar 24.6%
- xG · Balestier Khalsa 1.54 — Tanjong Pagar 1.06
-
Sep 19, 2026 · 11:04 UTC Opening odds snapshot PRE30
- 1X2 odds · Balestier Khalsa 1.64 · Draw 4.98 · Tanjong Pagar 3.56
- Implied 1X2 · Balestier Khalsa 55.9% · Draw 18.4% · Tanjong Pagar 25.7%
- Bookmaker · Pinnacle
-
Sep 19, 2026 · 11:31 UTC Closing snapshot recorded PRE1
- 1X2 odds · Balestier Khalsa 1.64 · Draw 4.98 · Tanjong Pagar 3.56
- Implied 1X2 · Balestier Khalsa 55.9% · Draw 18.4% · Tanjong Pagar 25.7%
- Bookmaker · Pinnacle
-
Sep 19, 2026 · 11:30 UTC Kickoff
-
FT Full-time result Tanjong Pagar win · 3–4
-
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 (10 pp)
- Statistical edge detected
- 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 Balestier Khalsa & Tanjong Pagar!
Unlock in-depth analysis, exclusive betting tips, and match forecasts with our premium subscription service.
Subscribe Now
Premier League — Standings
| # | TEAM | MP | W | D | L | PTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Albirex Niigata S | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| 2 | Geylang International | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| 3 | Tampines Rovers | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 4 | Tanjong Pagar | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| 5 | Home United | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 6 | Hougang United | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 7 | Balestier Khalsa | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| 8 | Young Lions | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| # | TEAM | MP | GS | GC | +/- | PTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Albirex Niigata S | 2 | 7 | 0 | +7 | 6 |
| 2 | Geylang International | 2 | 6 | 1 | +5 | 6 |
| 3 | Tanjong Pagar | 2 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 3 |
| 4 | Balestier Khalsa | 2 | 3 | 6 | -3 | 0 |
| 5 | Tampines Rovers | 1 | 2 | 0 | +2 | 3 |
| 6 | Home United | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| 7 | Hougang United | 2 | 2 | 5 | -3 | 1 |
| 8 | Young Lions | 2 | 1 | 9 | -8 | 0 |
