AI correctly predicted the Berceo win.
The match finished 2–1, validating the model's directional assessment.
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 Yes Yes ✔ Correct
- 1X2 Berceo Berceo ✔ Correct
- Correct Score Insights 1-1, 1-0, 0-1, 2-1, 1-2 2-1 ✔ Correct
Model vs Closing Market
| Outcome | Model | Closing Market | Difference | Signal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Berceo | 37.1% | 56.1% | -19.1 pp | Market Higher |
| Draw | 29.6% | 23.9% | +5.7 pp | Model Higher |
| San Marcial | 33.3% | 19.9% | +13.4 pp | Model Edge |
The closing market estimates Berceo's win probability at 56.1%, compared with the model's estimate of 37.1%, a difference of 19.1 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: PRE1.
After full time, the model's directional lean matched the result (Berceo win 2–1).
Market Assessment
The market is materially more optimistic about Berceo 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
- Expected goals projected a high-scoring match (ΣxG 2.60) — 3 goals materialised
- Both Teams To Score (Yes) matched the full-time result
- Exact score 2–1 fell within the model's highlighted bins
What failed
- Over / Under 2.5: model leaned Under 2.5; match finished Over 2.5 (3 goals)
Market lesson
Large model–market gaps do not automatically mean the market is right. Here the closing market priced Berceo higher (56.2% vs model 37.1%, 19.1 pp), but the model's lean was validated (Berceo win 2–1).
Prediction Timeline
How this prediction moved from forecast to full-time review.
-
Sep 27, 2026 · 10:01 UTC Forecast generated
- Model 1X2 · Berceo 37.0% · Draw 29.6% · San Marcial 33.4%
- xG · Berceo 1.34 — San Marcial 1.26
-
Sep 27, 2026 · 09:32 UTC Opening odds snapshot PRE30
- 1X2 odds · Berceo 1.60 · Draw 3.75 · San Marcial 4.50
- Implied 1X2 · Berceo 56.1% · Draw 23.9% · San Marcial 19.9%
- Bookmaker · Bet365
-
Sep 27, 2026 · 10:01 UTC Closing snapshot recorded PRE1
- 1X2 odds · Berceo 1.60 · Draw 3.75 · San Marcial 4.50
- Implied 1X2 · Berceo 56.1% · Draw 23.9% · San Marcial 19.9%
- Bookmaker · Bet365
-
Sep 27, 2026 · 10:00 UTC Kickoff
-
FT Full-time result Berceo win · 2–1
-
FT Prediction validated Directional lean matched 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 (19 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 Berceo & San Marcial!
Unlock in-depth analysis, exclusive betting tips, and match forecasts with our premium subscription service.
Subscribe Now
Tercera División RFEF - Group 16 — Standings
| # | TEAM | MP | W | D | L | PTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | La Calzada | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 9 |
| 2 | Haro Deportivo | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 7 |
| 3 | Berceo | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 6 |
| 4 | Calahorra | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 6 |
| 5 | Agoncillo | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 |
| 6 | Anguiano | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 5 |
| 7 | Comillas | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 5 |
| 8 | San Marcial | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 5 |
| 9 | Cenicero | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 |
| 10 | Alfaro | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| 11 | Pradejón | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| 12 | Varea | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| 13 | Yagüe | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 |
| 14 | Oyonesa | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 |
| 15 | Casalarreina | 4 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| 16 | River Ebro | 4 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| 17 | Calasancio | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| 18 | Vianés | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| # | TEAM | MP | GS | GC | +/- | PTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Berceo | 3 | 10 | 3 | +7 | 6 |
| 2 | Agoncillo | 4 | 10 | 8 | +2 | 5 |
| 3 | La Calzada | 3 | 8 | 3 | +5 | 9 |
| 4 | Calahorra | 3 | 8 | 5 | +3 | 6 |
| 5 | Haro Deportivo | 3 | 7 | 5 | +2 | 7 |
| 6 | Cenicero | 4 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
| 7 | Alfaro | 3 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 4 |
| 8 | Calasancio | 3 | 5 | 6 | -1 | 2 |
| 9 | Pradejón | 3 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
| 10 | River Ebro | 4 | 4 | 12 | -8 | 3 |
| 11 | Anguiano | 3 | 3 | 2 | +1 | 5 |
| 12 | Comillas | 3 | 3 | 2 | +1 | 5 |
| 13 | Yagüe | 3 | 3 | 4 | -1 | 3 |
| 14 | Vianés | 3 | 3 | 6 | -3 | 0 |
| 15 | Casalarreina | 4 | 3 | 10 | -7 | 3 |
| 16 | San Marcial | 3 | 2 | 1 | +1 | 5 |
| 17 | Varea | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| 18 | Oyonesa | 3 | 2 | 4 | -2 | 3 |
