Statistics / Football / Ecuador. Liga Pro / Manta FC vs Mushuc Runa SC

Manta FC vs Mushuc Runa SC Statistics & Analysis

Manta FC Manta FC
Aug 01, 2026 - 19:00
1 1.13
2 1.24
xG Accuracy: 78%
Mushuc Runa SC Mushuc Runa SC
Premium betting site stake: New users can use the promo code FHn2uDc1 to receive $100 cash.

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 Mushuc Runa SC Mushuc Runa SC ✔ Correct
  • Correct Score Insights 1-1, 0-1, 1-0, 0-0, 1-2 1-2 ✔ Correct

Validation Report

Immutable Snapshot

Prediction Time: Jul 26, 2026 · 05:45 UTC Snapshot ID: dp-1824829

Closing Odds 2.75
AI Fair Odds —
CLV +0.0%
Final Result Mushuc Runa SC win · Manta FC 1–2 Mushuc Runa SC
Prediction ✔ Correct
Decision Grade F

Model Performance

This prediction contributes to:

  • Primary Bets ROI (180d): -100.0%

Market intelligence

Supporting read on how the prioritized closing feed moved versus the model — use after the Primary pick above.

Market briefing

Market remained largely stable before kickoff. No meaningful late implied-price shift was detected between PRE30 and PRE1 on the prioritized bookmaker snapshot.

Despite limited late movement, the model still prices Mushuc Runa SC (1X2), Over 2.5 goals meaningfully above what those closing snapshots implied — that gap is a static “model vs. price” read, not a late steam or chase story.

The model still exceeds closing implied on Over 2.5 goals by about 3.2 percentage points — the clearest mispricing signal summarized on this page.

Model vs. closing implied

Market Model % Closing impl. % Gap (pp)
Manta FC (1X2) 31.7 34.7 -2.9
Draw (1X2) 31.2 30.3 +1.0
Mushuc Runa SC (1X2) 37.0 35.1 +2.0
Over 2.5 goals 42.2 39.0 +3.2
Under 2.5 goals 57.8 61.0 -3.2
What this means

In plain terms: the model lands near 42.2% on Over 2.5 goals, while the closing snapshot implied about 39.0%. The difference — about 3.2 percentage points — is the largest model-vs.-market gap highlighted on this page.

Quick definitions: “closing implied” is the probability for that outcome implied by the final captured odds (after a simple de-vig). “Gap (pp)” is the model percentage minus that implied value, in percentage points (pp).

Closing-window line move

Single prioritized bookmaker per snapshot (not all books). Capture path: PRE30 → PRE1 · Book: Pinnacle

Column tags in parentheses: Closing uses the first available snapshot in PRE1→PRE5→PRE10→PRE30; Early uses the first available in PRE30→PRE10→PRE5 that is not the same capture as Closing.

Detailed capture odds are folded below — movement was negligible on de-vig implied prices.

View full line-by-line capture table
Market Early (PRE30) Closing (PRE1) Implied Δ (pp)
Manta FC (1X2) 2.75 2.75 0.0
Draw (1X2) 3.15 3.15 0.0
Mushuc Runa SC (1X2) 2.72 2.72 0.0
Over 2.5 goals 2.44 2.44 0.0
Under 2.5 goals 1.56 1.56 0.0

AI match briefing

AI Match Summary

Below is a compact, numbers-first snapshot aligned with the same engine as the cards above.

  • League: Liga Pro
  • Fixture: Manta FC vs Mushuc Runa SC
  • Kickoff: 2026-08-01 19:00:00
  • 1X2 (model): Home 31.7% · Draw 31.2% · Away 37.0%
  • xG (showing): Manta FC 1.13 — Mushuc Runa SC 1.24 (total xG ≈ 2.37)
  • Best +EV line (same label as hero card when Primary thresholds are not met): Over 2.5 goals
  • Model: 42.2% · Implied: 40.5% · Probability edge: +1.7 pts · Est. EV: +3.0%
  • BTTS (model): Yes 49.8% · No 50.2%
  • Correct score (top bin): 1-1 (13.1%)

Totals and BTTS are evaluated against current market prices where available.

1X2 can look balanced even when side markets show clearer structure.

Historical Recommendation

Historical Decision: No Primary Bet

Outcome: Validated — Pre-match lean validated against the full-time result.

Risk Factors Considered Before Kickoff

  • Price movement: implied probabilities and EV move with odds.
  • Sample / data gaps: low-information leagues widen forecast bands.
  • In-play state: goals and red cards are not modelled here.
  • Scoreline variance: the most likely scoreline is still usually a low absolute probability outcome (often well below 20%).

Last Updated

September 16, 2026 (UTC)

Get Premium Predictions for Manta FC & Mushuc Runa SC!

Unlock in-depth analysis, exclusive betting tips, and match forecasts with our premium subscription service.

Subscribe Now
Back to Statistics
Liga Pro Liga Pro — Standings
# TEAM MP W D L PTS
1 Independiente del Valle 30 24 2 4 74
2 Macara 30 15 6 9 51
3 Aucas 30 14 8 8 50
4 Universidad Catolica 29 13 9 7 48
5 LDU de Quito 30 13 7 10 46
6 Barcelona SC 30 11 11 8 44
7 Libertad 30 11 8 11 41
8 Leones del Norte 30 10 9 11 39
9 Guayaquil City FC 30 10 9 11 39
10 Mushuc Runa SC 30 9 11 10 38
11 Emelec 30 10 9 11 36
12 Deportivo Cuenca 30 10 6 14 36
13 Orense SC 29 9 6 14 33
14 Tecnico Universitario 30 10 2 18 32
15 Delfin SC 30 7 7 16 28
16 Manta FC 30 5 6 19 21
# TEAM MP GS GC +/- PTS
1 Independiente del Valle 30 73 33 +40 74
2 Universidad Catolica 29 49 26 +23 48
3 Macara 30 41 33 +8 51
4 Mushuc Runa SC 30 35 38 -3 38
5 Orense SC 29 35 45 -10 33
6 Aucas 30 33 28 +5 50
7 Libertad 30 33 34 -1 41
8 Guayaquil City FC 30 33 36 -3 39
9 Barcelona SC 30 32 25 +7 44
10 LDU de Quito 30 31 24 +7 46
11 Leones del Norte 30 31 32 -1 39
12 Tecnico Universitario 30 28 42 -14 32
13 Emelec 30 25 34 -9 36
14 Deportivo Cuenca 30 25 37 -12 36
15 Delfin SC 30 19 31 -12 28
16 Manta FC 30 17 42 -25 21
# TEAM MP xG xGC +/- PTS
1 Emelec 30 3.0 0.8 +2.2 36
2 Aucas 30 2.9 1.6 +1.3 50
3 LDU de Quito 30 4.2 3.1 +1.1 46
4 Macara 30 3.0 2.0 +1.0 51
5 Universidad Catolica 29 2.3 1.4 +0.9 48
6 Leones del Norte 30 2.6 1.9 +0.7 39
7 Mushuc Runa SC 30 2.3 1.7 +0.6 38
8 Delfin SC 30 1.7 1.4 +0.3 28
9 Guayaquil City FC 30 1.4 1.7 -0.3 39
10 Barcelona SC 30 3.4 4.1 -0.7 44
11 Manta FC 30 0.5 1.3 -0.8 21
12 Tecnico Universitario 30 0.6 1.7 -1.1 32
13 Orense SC 29 0.3 1.8 -1.5 33
14 Libertad 30 0.3 2.0 -1.7 41
15 Deportivo Cuenca 30 3.3 5.3 -2.0 36
16 Independiente del Valle 30 — — — 74