Genk–Real Betis

0–0

HT 0–0

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

What the model said, and what happened

Too close to call — only 1.6% between the top two

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

Match statistics

Match statistics
Genk		Real Betis
5	Shots	10
1	Shots on target	3
1	Shots inside the box	3
3	Goalkeeper saves	1
2	Corners	1
3	Offsides	2
44%	Possession	56%
442	Passes	584
367	Accurate passes

What we expected, and what happened

Expected goals before kick-off: Genk 1.45 · Real Betis 1.42. On the pitch: 0-0.
Shots Genk 5 · Real Betis 10; on target 1 and 3.
Real Betis kept the ball more (56%).

Referee

Elcin Masiyev, Azerbaijan→

4.00

yellows per match

0.00

reds per match

matches of data

2 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 38.7%: “Genk to win”. Second comes “Real Betis to win” at 37.1%.
Behind that distribution are the expected goals: 1.45 for Genk, 1.42 for Real Betis.
The highest double chance value is 75.8% (12 — any result other than a draw).
These values were computed from 2,174 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.

Genk to win38.7%

Draw24.2%

Real Betis to win37.1%

When the model has said 35–40% in the past, 2,123 of 5,759 predictions were correct (36.9%). Accuracy record →

12	Fouls	12

1	Yellow cards	3

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 55–60% in the past, 3,540 of 6,250 predictions were correct (56.6%). Accuracy record →

Double chance

1X — Genk win or draw62.9%

12 — any result other than a draw75.8%

X2 — draw or Real Betis win61.3%

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 (24.2%).

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 Genk score1.45

Attack: Genk score above the league average (24% more).

Opponent's defence: Real Betis's defence is close to the league average (0.93×), so it doesn't move the expectation much.

Result: These two effects give an expectation of 1.45 goals (including home advantage).

How many goals Real Betis score1.42

Attack: Real Betis score close to the league average.

Opponent's defence: Genk's defence is close to the league average (0.92×), so it doesn't move the expectation much.

Result: These two effects give an expectation of 1.42 goals (including the away penalty).

Most likely scorelines

1–111.3%1–08.6%2–18.5%

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 2174 matches played in this league before kick-off; the team with fewer has 123 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.