The model missed the final outcome (Nottingham Forest W win 1–2).
The model had projected Durham W at 36.1%, 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 (3 goals) ✖ Incorrect
- Both Teams To Score BTTS No Yes ✖ Incorrect
- 1X2 Durham W Nottingham Forest W ✖ Incorrect
- Correct Score Insights 1-1, 1-0, 0-1, 2-1, 1-2 1-2 ✔ Correct
Model vs Closing Market
| Outcome | Model | Closing Market | Difference | Signal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Durham W | 36.1% | 20.1% | +16.1 pp | Model Edge |
| Draw | 29.6% | 23.4% | +6.2 pp | Model Higher |
| Nottingham Forest W | 34.2% | 56.5% | -22.3 pp | Market Higher |
The closing market estimates Nottingham Forest W's win probability at 56.5%, compared with the model's estimate of 34.2%, a difference of 22.3 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 Nottingham Forest W win 1–2.
Post Match Insights
What worked
- Expected goals projected a high-scoring match (ΣxG 2.60) — 3 goals materialised
- Exact score 1–2 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 Durham W by 22.3 percentage points (58.4% vs model 36.1%) — in this case the market view proved closer.
Prediction Timeline
How this prediction moved from forecast to full-time review.
-
Sep 20, 2026 · 11:01 UTC Forecast generated
- Model 1X2 · Durham W 36.1% · Draw 29.7% · Nottingham Forest W 34.2%
- xG · Durham W 1.32 — Nottingham Forest W 1.28
-
Sep 20, 2026 · 10:32 UTC Opening odds snapshot PRE30
- 1X2 odds · Durham W 4.51 · Draw 3.86 · Nottingham Forest W 1.60
- Implied 1X2 · Durham W 20.1% · Draw 23.4% · Nottingham Forest W 56.5%
- Bookmaker · Pinnacle
-
Sep 20, 2026 · 11:01 UTC Closing snapshot recorded PRE1
- 1X2 odds · Durham W 4.51 · Draw 3.86 · Nottingham Forest W 1.60
- Implied 1X2 · Durham W 20.1% · Draw 23.4% · Nottingham Forest W 56.5%
- Bookmaker · Pinnacle
-
Sep 20, 2026 · 11:00 UTC Kickoff
-
FT Full-time result Nottingham Forest W win · 1–2
-
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: Warning
- Large market gap (22 pp)
- No strong statistical edge
- Pricing remains divergent
- 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 Durham W & Nottingham Forest W!
Unlock in-depth analysis, exclusive betting tips, and match forecasts with our premium subscription service.
Subscribe Now
Women's Championship — Standings
| # | TEAM | MP | W | D | L | PTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Newcastle United W | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 9 |
| 2 | Sunderland W | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 7 |
| 3 | Wolverhampton W | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 6 |
| 4 | Leicester City WFC | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 6 |
| 5 | Southampton W | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 5 |
| 6 | Nottingham Forest W | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 5 |
| 7 | Ipswich Town W | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 5 |
| 8 | Bristol City W | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 |
| 9 | Watford W | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| 10 | Burnley W | 4 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 11 | Durham W | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| 12 | Sheffield United W | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| # | TEAM | MP | GS | GC | +/- | PTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Newcastle United W | 3 | 7 | 1 | +6 | 9 |
| 2 | Sunderland W | 3 | 6 | 2 | +4 | 7 |
| 3 | Wolverhampton W | 3 | 6 | 3 | +3 | 6 |
| 4 | Bristol City W | 4 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 4 |
| 5 | Leicester City WFC | 3 | 5 | 3 | +2 | 6 |
| 6 | Nottingham Forest W | 3 | 5 | 4 | +1 | 5 |
| 7 | Durham W | 3 | 4 | 9 | -5 | 0 |
| 8 | Southampton W | 3 | 3 | 1 | +2 | 5 |
| 9 | Watford W | 3 | 3 | 7 | -4 | 2 |
| 10 | Ipswich Town W | 3 | 2 | 1 | +1 | 5 |
| 11 | Sheffield United W | 3 | 2 | 8 | -6 | 0 |
| 12 | Burnley W | 4 | 1 | 5 | -4 | 2 |
