Serie B · Italy · Regular Season - 34
HT 0–0
| Juve Stabia | Cesena | |
|---|---|---|
| 7 | Shots | 16 |
| 3 | Shots on target | 2 |
| 7 | Shots inside the box | 10 |
| 2 | Goalkeeper saves | 1 |
| 6 | Corners | 2 |
| 0 | Offsides | 1 |
| 50% | Possession | 50% |
| 421 | Passes | 430 |
| 349 | Accurate passes |
4.75
yellows per match
0.13
reds per match
8
matches of data
8 matches is a small sample — these averages are noisy and should not be read as a tendency.
This is a prediction, not a guarantee; a probability is not a certainty.
These sentences are built by a fixed template; every number in them comes straight from the model's computation, none invented while the text was written.
When the model has said 40–45% in the past, 1,778 of 3,998 predictions were correct (44.5%). Accuracy record →
| 360 |
| 7 | Fouls | 20 |
|---|
| 1 | Yellow cards | 2 |
|---|
| 0 | Red cards | 0 |
|---|
The measurements our data provider sent for this match. A row that was not measured shows “—”; writing 0 into an empty field would claim we measured it and found none.
When the model has said 50–55% in the past, 2,597 of 5,092 predictions were correct (51.0%). Accuracy record →
These three values add up to 200%, not 100% — and that is not a mistake. The options are not mutually exclusive; every outcome is counted in two of them. For the same reason 1X plus X2 exceeds 100% by exactly the probability of a draw (29.0%).
First-half double chance
These values are not a fraction of the full-match prediction; they come from a separate model trained on the first-half scores of 1470 matches. Its edge over the base rate is markedly smaller than the full-match model's — the measured figure is on the accuracy record. Read them more cautiously. First-half goal markets are not published because they failed to beat the base rate.
Fouls
Corners
These figures are set to hold in at least 60% of matches; in the rest the count comes in below them. No upper bound is stated — we make no "at most" claim. Yellow cards were measured and are not published: there our model did not beat the historical average.
The 3+ goals prediction is not published for this match.
The model gives a probability below the baseline (46.2%). In backtesting the model's edge in the "fewer goals" direction could not be confirmed; we don't publish an unconfirmed prediction.
Expected goals comes out of a team's attack weighed against its opponent's defence. A strong attack is damped when it meets a strong defence — which is why comparing the ratings on their own is misleading.
Attack: Juve Stabia score close to the league average.
Opponent's defence: Cesena's defence is close to the league average (1.00×), so it doesn't move the expectation much.
Result: These two effects give an expectation of 1.37 goals (including home advantage).
Attack: Cesena score close to the league average.
Opponent's defence: Juve Stabia's defence is close to the league average (0.90×), so it doesn't move the expectation much.
Result: These two effects give an expectation of 1.05 goals (including the away penalty).
A single scoreline is always less likely than an outcome: “home win” is the sum of 1-0, 2-0, 2-1 and dozens more. So the most likely single score can be a draw while the most likely outcome is a home win; the two do not contradict each other.
Ratings were computed from 1470 matches played in this league before kick-off; the team with fewer has 71 matches. No data from after the match was used. The model's track record is published unfiltered.