Eredivisie · Netherlands · Regular Season - 9
HT 0–2
Incorrect — we gave this result 28%double chance: correct
This verdict goes into the public record unchanged; we do not filter out the ones we get wrong. The model's track record
| Ajax | AZ Alkmaar | |
|---|---|---|
| 17 | Shots | 13 |
| 6 | Shots on target | 3 |
| 11 | Shots inside the box | 7 |
| 1 | Goalkeeper saves | 6 |
| 5 | Corners | 4 |
| 3 | Offsides | 1 |
| 61% | Possession | 39% |
| 549 | Passes | 349 |
| 480 | Accurate passes |
2.00
yellows per match
0.50
reds per match
2
matches of data
2 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 45–50% in the past, 1,541 of 3,251 predictions were correct (47.4%). Accuracy record →
| 281 |
| 13 | Fouls | 19 |
|---|
| 4 | 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 65–70% in the past, 575 of 859 predictions were correct (66.9%). 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 (25.1%).
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 993 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.
When the model has said 60–65% in the past, 1,139 of 1,798 predictions were correct (63.3%). Accuracy record →
The league's historical "3+ goals" rate is 60.3%. For this match the model gives a value above that baseline — and in backtesting the model's edge was confirmed only in this direction.
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: Ajax score above the league average (26% more).
Opponent's defence: AZ Alkmaar concede 21% fewer than the league average, which pulls the expectation down.
Result: These two effects give an expectation of 1.80 goals (including home advantage).
Attack: AZ Alkmaar score above the league average (17% more).
Opponent's defence: Ajax concede 23% fewer than the league average, which pulls the expectation down.
Result: These two effects give an expectation of 1.27 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 993 matches played in this league before kick-off; the team with fewer has 110 matches. No data from after the match was used. The model's track record is published unfiltered.