Brann–Rangers

3–0

HT 1–0

Kick-off: Thursday, 23 October 2025 at 16:45
Status: Match Finished

What the model said, and what happened

Prediction correct

This verdict goes into the public record unchanged; we do not filter out the ones we get wrong. The model's track record

Goals and red cards

40'BrannE. Kornvig (assist: B. Finne)
55'BrannJ. Sorensen (assist: B. Finne)
79'BrannN. Holm (assist: V. Dragsnes)

Match statistics

Match statistics
Brann		Rangers
13	Shots	9
5	Shots on target	1
11	Shots inside the box	6
1	Goalkeeper saves	2
3	Corners	5
0	Offsides	2
53%	Possession	47%
433	Passes	376
347	Accurate passes

What we expected, and what happened

Expected goals before kick-off: Brann 1.69 · Rangers 1.40. On the pitch: 3-0.
Shots Brann 13 · Rangers 9; on target 5 and 1.

Referee

Vassilis Fotias, Greece→

4.17

yellows per match

0.17

reds per match

matches of data

6 matches is a small sample — these averages are noisy and should not be read as a tendency.

Model prediction

Why this prediction?

The model puts the most likely outcome at 44.7%: “Brann to win”. Second comes “Rangers to win” at 32.3%.
Behind that distribution are the expected goals: 1.69 for Brann, 1.40 for Rangers.
The highest double chance value is 77.0% (12 — any result other than a draw).
These values were computed from 1,621 past matches.

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.

Brann to win44.7%

Draw23.0%

Rangers to win32.3%

When the model has said 40–45% in the past, 2,356 of 5,296 predictions were correct (44.5%). Accuracy record →

10	Fouls	10

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 60–65% in the past, 2,215 of 3,677 predictions were correct (60.2%). Accuracy record →

Double chance

1X — Brann win or draw67.7%

12 — any result other than a draw77.0%

X2 — draw or Rangers win55.3%

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 (23.0%).

Goals market

The 3+ goals prediction is not published for this match.

The model gives a probability below the baseline (54.4%). In backtesting the model's edge in the "fewer goals" direction could not be confirmed; we don't publish an unconfirmed prediction.

What these probabilities rest on

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.

How many goals Brann score1.69

Attack: Brann score above the league average (21% more).

Opponent's defence: Rangers concede 22% fewer than the league average, which pulls the expectation down.

Result: These two effects give an expectation of 1.69 goals (including home advantage).

How many goals Rangers score1.40

Attack: Rangers score above the league average (41% more).

Opponent's defence: Brann concede 17% fewer than the league average, which pulls the expectation down.

Result: These two effects give an expectation of 1.40 goals (including the away penalty).

Most likely scorelines

1–110.5%2–19.1%1–08.0%

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 1621 matches played in this league before kick-off; the team with fewer has 84 matches. No data from after the match was used. The model's track record is published unfiltered.

Week 3 of the season. This prediction was computed from previous seasons. Summer transfers, budget changes and squad rebuilds aren't in the ratings yet — the model can only see that a team has been rebuilt once new results come in.

We measured this: the bias is only pronounced in the opening week. In this week the model's overall accuracy does not separate from the rest of the season — that is, we found no measurable flaw. The one tendency across all opening weeks is that home wins are called slightly too often (said 43.0%, got 41.9%; n=583).

This sample is small and not statistically established, which is why we do not correct the model for it. The correction we tried (pulling probabilities toward the league average) didn't win on holdout, so it wasn't added. Read opening-week predictions with a little more caution.