AI correctly predicted the Azam win.
The match finished 0–2, 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 (2 goals) ✔ Correct
- Both Teams To Score BTTS Yes No ✖ Incorrect
- 1X2 Azam Azam ✔ Correct
- Correct Score Insights 1-1, 0-1, 1-2, 0-2, 1-0 0-2 ✔ Correct
Model vs Closing Market
| Outcome | Model | Closing Market | Difference | Signal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kagera Sugar | 25.0% | 14.2% | +10.8 pp | Model Edge |
| Draw | 28.7% | 25.0% | +3.8 pp | Aligned |
| Azam | 46.3% | 60.9% | -14.5 pp | Market Higher |
The closing market estimates Azam's win probability at 60.9%, compared with the model's estimate of 46.3%, a difference of 14.5 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 (Azam win 0–2).
Market Assessment
The market is materially more optimistic about Azam 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
- Azam attacking xG significantly stronger (1.53 vs 1.07)
- Under 2.5 goals aligned with the xG profile
- Exact score 0–2 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 Azam higher (60.8% vs model 46.3%, 14.5 pp), but the model's lean was validated (Azam win 0–2).
Prediction Timeline
How this prediction moved from forecast to full-time review.
-
Aug 31, 2026 · 17:59 UTC Forecast generated
- Model 1X2 · Kagera Sugar 24.9% · Draw 28.7% · Azam 46.3%
- xG · Kagera Sugar 1.07 — Azam 1.53
-
Aug 31, 2026 · 17:29 UTC Opening odds snapshot PRE30
- 1X2 odds · Kagera Sugar 6.26 · Draw 3.56 · Azam 1.46
- Implied 1X2 · Kagera Sugar 14.2% · Draw 25.0% · Azam 60.9%
- Bookmaker · Pinnacle
-
Aug 31, 2026 · 17:59 UTC Closing snapshot recorded PRE1
- 1X2 odds · Kagera Sugar 6.26 · Draw 3.56 · Azam 1.46
- Implied 1X2 · Kagera Sugar 14.2% · Draw 25.0% · Azam 60.9%
- Bookmaker · Pinnacle
-
Aug 31, 2026 · 18:00 UTC Kickoff
-
FT Full-time result Azam win · 0–2
-
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 (15 pp)
- No strong statistical edge
- 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 Kagera Sugar & Azam!
Unlock in-depth analysis, exclusive betting tips, and match forecasts with our premium subscription service.
Subscribe Now
Ligi kuu Bara — Standings
| # | TEAM | MP | W | D | L | PTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Young Africans | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 18 |
| 2 | Simba | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 18 |
| 3 | Azam | 7 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 14 |
| 4 | Singida Fountain Gate | 6 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 10 |
| 5 | Polisi Tanzania | 6 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 10 |
| 6 | Mbeya City | 6 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 10 |
| 7 | Dodoma Jiji | 6 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 10 |
| 8 | Mashujaa | 6 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 9 |
| 9 | Geita Gold | 6 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 7 |
| 10 | JKT Tanzania | 6 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 7 |
| 11 | Coastal Union | 6 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 7 |
| 12 | Kitayosce | 6 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 6 |
| 13 | Namungo | 7 | 2 | 0 | 5 | 6 |
| 14 | Singida Big Stars | 6 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 |
| 15 | Kagera Sugar | 6 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 2 |
| 16 | Pamba Jiji | 6 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 1 |
| # | TEAM | MP | GS | GC | +/- | PTS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Young Africans | 6 | 16 | 2 | +14 | 18 |
| 2 | Singida Fountain Gate | 6 | 13 | 9 | +4 | 10 |
| 3 | Simba | 6 | 11 | 2 | +9 | 18 |
| 4 | Azam | 7 | 11 | 7 | +4 | 14 |
| 5 | Polisi Tanzania | 6 | 9 | 7 | +2 | 10 |
| 6 | Geita Gold | 6 | 9 | 8 | +1 | 7 |
| 7 | JKT Tanzania | 6 | 7 | 10 | -3 | 7 |
| 8 | Mbeya City | 6 | 6 | 4 | +2 | 10 |
| 9 | Mashujaa | 6 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 9 |
| 10 | Kitayosce | 6 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
| 11 | Coastal Union | 6 | 6 | 9 | -3 | 7 |
| 12 | Namungo | 7 | 6 | 11 | -5 | 6 |
| 13 | Kagera Sugar | 6 | 5 | 14 | -9 | 2 |
| 14 | Dodoma Jiji | 6 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 10 |
| 15 | Pamba Jiji | 6 | 4 | 13 | -9 | 1 |
| 16 | Singida Big Stars | 6 | 2 | 9 | -7 | 4 |
