AI correctly predicted the Tubize win.
The match finished 0–1, 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 Under 2.5 (1 goals) ✔ Correct
- Both Teams To Score BTTS Yes No ✖ Incorrect
- 1X2 Tubize Tubize ✔ Correct
- Correct Score Insights 1-1, 0-1, 1-2, 0-2, 1-0 0-1 ✔ Correct
Model vs Closing Market
| Outcome | Model | Closing Market | Difference | Signal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standard Liège II | 26.6% | 28.3% | -1.6 pp | Aligned |
| Draw | 29.0% | 19.6% | +9.4 pp | Model Higher |
| Tubize | 44.3% | 52.1% | -7.7 pp | Market Higher |
The statistical model estimates Draw's win probability at 29.0%, compared with the closing market's implied probability of 19.6%, a difference of 9.4 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: PRE5.
After full time, the model's directional lean matched the result (Tubize win 0–1).
Market Assessment
The fair estimate shows a modest edge over current market pricing on Draw.
- Monitor line movement before kickoff — not a betting recommendation.
Post Match Insights
What worked
- Tubize attacking xG significantly stronger (1.49 vs 1.11)
- Under 2.5 goals aligned with the xG profile
- Exact score 0–1 fell within the model's highlighted bins
What failed
- Both Teams To Score: model leaned BTTS Yes; match finished BTTS No
Market lesson
Large model–market gaps do not automatically mean the market is right. Here the closing market priced Tubize more conservatively (34.9% vs model 44.3%, 9.4 pp), but the model's lean was validated (Tubize win 0–1).
Prediction Timeline
How this prediction moved from forecast to full-time review.
-
Aug 30, 2026 · 12:59 UTC Forecast generated
- Model 1X2 · Standard Liège II 26.7% · Draw 29.0% · Tubize 44.3%
- xG · Standard Liège II 1.11 — Tubize 1.49
-
Aug 30, 2026 · 12:34 UTC Opening odds snapshot PRE30
- 1X2 odds · Standard Liège II 3.24 · Draw 4.67 · Tubize 1.76
- Implied 1X2 · Standard Liège II 28.3% · Draw 19.6% · Tubize 52.1%
- Bookmaker · Pinnacle
-
Aug 30, 2026 · 12:59 UTC Closing snapshot recorded PRE5
- 1X2 odds · Standard Liège II 3.24 · Draw 4.67 · Tubize 1.76
- Implied 1X2 · Standard Liège II 28.3% · Draw 19.6% · Tubize 52.1%
- Bookmaker · Pinnacle
-
Aug 30, 2026 · 13:00 UTC Kickoff
-
FT Full-time result Tubize win · 0–1
-
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: Pass
- Statistical edge detected
- 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 Standard Liège II & Tubize!
Unlock in-depth analysis, exclusive betting tips, and match forecasts with our premium subscription service.
Subscribe Now
First Amateur Division — Standings
| # | TEAM | MP | W | D | L | PTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Meux | 6 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 15 |
| 2 | RWDM | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 15 |
| 3 | Tubize | 6 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 11 |
| 4 | Rochefort | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 10 |
| 5 | Union Saint-Gilloise II | 6 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 8 |
| 6 | Albert Quévy-Mons | 5 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 7 |
| 7 | Onhaye | 6 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 6 |
| 8 | Sporting Charleroi II | 5 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5 |
| 9 | Standard Liège II | 5 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| 10 | Habay-la-Neuve | 5 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| 11 | Olympic Charleroi | 5 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| 12 | Flénu | 5 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 1 |
| # | TEAM | MP | GS | GC | +/- | PTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Meux | 6 | 14 | 4 | +10 | 15 |
| 2 | Rochefort | 5 | 12 | 6 | +6 | 10 |
| 3 | Albert Quévy-Mons | 5 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 7 |
| 4 | Tubize | 6 | 9 | 8 | +1 | 11 |
| 5 | RWDM | 5 | 8 | 1 | +7 | 15 |
| 6 | Onhaye | 6 | 7 | 12 | -5 | 6 |
| 7 | Union Saint-Gilloise II | 6 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 8 |
| 8 | Standard Liège II | 5 | 5 | 3 | +2 | 4 |
| 9 | Habay-la-Neuve | 5 | 5 | 9 | -4 | 4 |
| 10 | Flénu | 5 | 5 | 13 | -8 | 1 |
| 11 | Sporting Charleroi II | 5 | 4 | 5 | -1 | 5 |
| 12 | Olympic Charleroi | 5 | 4 | 12 | -8 | 4 |
