Statistics / Football / Japan. J1 League / Mito Hollyhock vs Kashima

Mito Hollyhock vs Kashima Statistics & Analysis

Mito Hollyhock Mito Hollyhock
Sep 02, 2026 - 10:00
4 1.19
2 1.41
xG Accuracy: 39%
Kashima Kashima
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 (6 goals) ✖ Incorrect
  • Both Teams To Score BTTS Yes Yes ✔ Correct
  • 1X2 Kashima Mito Hollyhock ✖ Incorrect
  • Correct Score Insights 1-1, 0-1, 1-0, 1-2, 0-0 4-2 ✖ Incorrect

Validation Report

Immutable Snapshot

Prediction Time: Aug 27, 2026 · 01:42 UTC Snapshot ID: dp-5619287

Closing Odds 1.82
AI Fair Odds —
CLV +0.0%
Final Result Mito Hollyhock win · Mito Hollyhock 4–2 Kashima
Prediction ✖ Missed
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 Mito Hollyhock (1X2), Draw (1X2), Under 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 Mito Hollyhock (1X2) by about 8.2 percentage points — the clearest mispricing signal summarized on this page.

Model vs. closing implied

Market Model % Closing impl. % Gap (pp)
Mito Hollyhock (1X2) 30.1 21.9 +8.2
Draw (1X2) 29.4 25.0 +4.4
Kashima (1X2) 40.5 53.1 -12.6
Over 2.5 goals 48.2 51.7 -3.5
Under 2.5 goals 51.8 48.3 +3.5
What this means

In plain terms: the model lands near 30.1% on Mito Hollyhock (1X2), while the closing snapshot implied about 21.9%. The difference — about 8.2 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)
Mito Hollyhock (1X2) 4.42 4.42 0.0
Draw (1X2) 3.86 3.86 0.0
Kashima (1X2) 1.82 1.82 0.0
Over 2.5 goals 1.88 1.88 0.0
Under 2.5 goals 2.01 2.01 0.0

AI match briefing

AI Match Summary

Pre-match snapshot for this fixture.

  • League: J1 League
  • Fixture: Mito Hollyhock vs Kashima
  • Kickoff: 2026-09-02 10:00:00
  • 1X2 (model): Home 30.1% · Draw 29.4% · Away 40.5%
  • xG (showing): Mito Hollyhock 1.19 — Kashima 1.41 (total xG ≈ 2.6)
  • Best +EV line (same label as hero card when Primary thresholds are not met): Under 2.5 goals
  • Model: 51.8% · Implied: 50.0% · Probability edge: +1.8 pts · Est. EV: +3.6%
  • BTTS (model): Yes 54.2% · No 45.8%
  • Correct score (top bin): 1-1 (12.5%)

Use the cards for tiering; this text only restates the same inputs in narrative form.

Early match state can move realised goals away from pre-kick projections.

Historical Recommendation

Historical Decision: Selective Lean - No Primary Bet

Outcome: Missed — Pre-match 1X2 lean did not match 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 29, 2026 (UTC)

Get Premium Predictions for Mito Hollyhock & Kashima!

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

Subscribe Now
Back to Statistics
J1 League J1 League — Standings
# TEAM MP W D L PTS
1 Vissel Kobe 8 6 1 1 19
2 Kashiwa Reysol 8 6 0 2 18
3 Sanfrecce Hiroshima 8 5 2 1 17
4 Machida Zelvia 8 5 2 1 17
5 FC Tokyo 8 5 2 1 17
6 Yokohama F. Marinos 8 4 2 2 14
7 Kawasaki Frontale 8 3 4 1 13
8 Kashima 8 4 1 3 13
9 Fagiano Okayama 8 4 1 3 13
10 Urawa 8 4 0 4 12
11 Cerezo Osaka 8 3 2 3 11
12 Shimizu S-pulse 8 3 1 4 10
13 Mito Hollyhock 8 2 3 3 9
14 Kyoto Sanga 8 2 2 4 8
15 V-varen Nagasaki 8 2 2 4 8
16 Gamba Osaka 8 1 3 4 6
17 Nagoya Grampus 8 2 0 6 6
18 Avispa Fukuoka 8 1 1 6 4
19 Tokyo Verdy 8 0 4 4 4
20 JEF United Chiba 8 1 1 6 4
# TEAM MP GS GC +/- PTS
1 Machida Zelvia 8 21 10 +11 17
2 Sanfrecce Hiroshima 8 20 6 +14 17
3 Kashiwa Reysol 8 17 12 +5 18
4 Kashima 8 17 16 +1 13
5 Kawasaki Frontale 8 16 12 +4 13
6 Urawa 8 16 18 -2 12
7 FC Tokyo 8 14 8 +6 17
8 Yokohama F. Marinos 8 13 9 +4 14
9 Vissel Kobe 8 12 5 +7 19
10 Fagiano Okayama 8 11 10 +1 13
11 Mito Hollyhock 8 11 11 0 9
12 Kyoto Sanga 8 11 15 -4 8
13 V-varen Nagasaki 8 10 15 -5 8
14 Avispa Fukuoka 8 9 12 -3 4
15 Gamba Osaka 8 8 14 -6 6
16 Cerezo Osaka 8 7 12 -5 11
17 Nagoya Grampus 8 7 14 -7 6
18 JEF United Chiba 8 7 18 -11 4
19 Shimizu S-pulse 8 6 8 -2 10
20 Tokyo Verdy 8 4 12 -8 4
# TEAM MP xG xGC +/- PTS
1 V-varen Nagasaki 8 3.7 1.7 +2.0 8
2 Sanfrecce Hiroshima 8 2.2 0.6 +1.6 17
3 Yokohama F. Marinos 8 3.0 1.5 +1.5 14
4 Vissel Kobe 8 2.3 0.9 +1.4 19
5 FC Tokyo 8 3.0 1.7 +1.3 17
6 Cerezo Osaka 8 1.8 1.1 +0.7 11
7 Urawa 8 1.9 1.4 +0.5 12
8 Fagiano Okayama 8 1.3 0.8 +0.5 13
9 Mito Hollyhock 8 1.6 1.3 +0.3 9
10 Kashima 8 1.3 1.6 -0.3 13
11 Avispa Fukuoka 8 1.4 1.9 -0.5 4
12 JEF United Chiba 8 0.8 1.3 -0.5 4
13 Kashiwa Reysol 8 1.1 1.8 -0.7 18
14 Shimizu S-pulse 8 1.7 3.0 -1.3 10
15 Tokyo Verdy 8 0.9 2.3 -1.4 4
16 Kyoto Sanga 8 1.5 3.0 -1.5 8
17 Nagoya Grampus 8 0.6 2.2 -1.6 6
18 Gamba Osaka 8 1.7 3.7 -2.0 6
19 Machida Zelvia 8 — — — 17
20 Kawasaki Frontale 8 — — — 13