The model missed the final outcome (Celtiga win 2–0).
The model had projected Estradense at 39.9%, 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 Over 2.5 Under 2.5 (2 goals) ✖ Incorrect
- Both Teams To Score BTTS Yes No ✖ Incorrect
- 1X2 Estradense Celtiga ✖ Incorrect
- Correct Score Insights 1-1, 0-1, 1-0, 1-2, 2-1 2-0 ✖ Incorrect
Model vs Closing Market
| Outcome | Model | Closing Market | Difference | Signal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Celtiga | 30.6% | 25.1% | +5.5 pp | Model Higher |
| Draw | 29.5% | 28.1% | +1.4 pp | Aligned |
| Estradense | 39.9% | 46.8% | -6.8 pp | Market Higher |
The closing market estimates Estradense's win probability at 46.8%, compared with the model's estimate of 39.9%, a difference of 6.8 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 Celtiga win 2–0.
Market Assessment
The market and model broadly agree on Estradense. 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 failed
- Both Teams To Score: model leaned BTTS Yes; match finished BTTS No
- Over / Under 2.5: model leaned Over 2.5; match finished Under 2.5 (2 goals)
Market lesson
The closing market differed from the model on Estradense by 6.8 percentage points (46.8% vs model 39.9%) — in this case the market view proved closer.
Prediction Timeline
How this prediction moved from forecast to full-time review.
-
Sep 27, 2026 · 16:02 UTC Forecast generated
- Model 1X2 · Celtiga 30.6% · Draw 29.5% · Estradense 40.0%
- xG · Celtiga 1.20 — Estradense 1.40
-
Sep 27, 2026 · 15:33 UTC Opening odds snapshot PRE30
- 1X2 odds · Celtiga 3.60 · Draw 3.21 · Estradense 1.93
- Implied 1X2 · Celtiga 25.1% · Draw 28.1% · Estradense 46.8%
- Bookmaker · Pinnacle
-
Sep 27, 2026 · 16:01 UTC Closing snapshot recorded PRE1
- 1X2 odds · Celtiga 3.60 · Draw 3.21 · Estradense 1.93
- Implied 1X2 · Celtiga 25.1% · Draw 28.1% · Estradense 46.8%
- Bookmaker · Pinnacle
-
Sep 27, 2026 · 16:00 UTC Kickoff
-
FT Full-time result Celtiga win · 2–0
-
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 Celtiga & Estradense!
Unlock in-depth analysis, exclusive betting tips, and match forecasts with our premium subscription service.
Subscribe Now
Tercera División RFEF - Group 1 — Standings
| # | TEAM | MP | W | D | L | PTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Boiro | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 9 |
| 2 | Sarriana | 4 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 9 |
| 3 | Alondras | 4 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 9 |
| 4 | Villalbés | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 7 |
| 5 | Antela | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| 6 | Barco | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 6 |
| 7 | Lalin | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 6 |
| 8 | Atlético Arteixo | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 |
| 9 | Pontevedra II | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| 10 | Estradense | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| 11 | Portonovo SD | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| 12 | Celta de Vigo III | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 |
| 13 | Silva | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| 14 | Arenteiro | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 |
| 15 | Somozas | 4 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 16 | Celtiga | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| 17 | Coruña | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| 18 | Viveiro | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| # | TEAM | MP | GS | GC | +/- | PTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Alondras | 4 | 10 | 8 | +2 | 9 |
| 2 | Sarriana | 4 | 8 | 5 | +3 | 9 |
| 3 | Pontevedra II | 3 | 8 | 5 | +3 | 4 |
| 4 | Boiro | 3 | 7 | 2 | +5 | 9 |
| 5 | Villalbés | 3 | 6 | 4 | +2 | 7 |
| 6 | Estradense | 3 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 4 |
| 7 | Celta de Vigo III | 4 | 5 | 6 | -1 | 4 |
| 8 | Coruña | 3 | 5 | 9 | -4 | 0 |
| 9 | Barco | 3 | 4 | 3 | +1 | 6 |
| 10 | Atlético Arteixo | 4 | 4 | 5 | -1 | 5 |
| 11 | Lalin | 3 | 3 | 2 | +1 | 6 |
| 12 | Portonovo SD | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 4 |
| 13 | Silva | 3 | 3 | 4 | -1 | 4 |
| 14 | Celtiga | 3 | 3 | 6 | -3 | 1 |
| 15 | Antela | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 7 |
| 16 | Arenteiro | 3 | 2 | 3 | -1 | 3 |
| 17 | Somozas | 4 | 1 | 3 | -2 | 2 |
| 18 | Viveiro | 3 | 0 | 4 | -4 | 0 |
