Our model leans to Atletico Paranaense here, but not by much: 48% (fair odds 2.08) against 27% for the draw. Published scoreline: 1-0, the likeliest exact score within that result.
More →Our model leans to Cruzeiro here, but not by much: 47% (fair odds 2.13) against 29% for the draw. Published scoreline: 1-0, the likeliest exact score within that result.
More →Our model leans to Flamengo here, but not by much: 43% (fair odds 2.33) against 27% for the draw. Published scoreline: 1-2, the likeliest exact score within that result.
More →Greece 0–0 Germany finished with a draw. The model got this one wrong. It leaned to Germany at 40%, and rated the actual result at 30%.
More →Portugal 2–1 Norway finished with Portugal winning. Our model had called it exactly: it published 2-1, a scoreline it rated at 9%.
More →Estudiantes de Rio Cuarto 1–2 Racing Club finished with Racing Club winning. The model had the right result: it gave that outcome 41%, though it expected 0-1 rather than 1–2.
More →France 4–1 Belgium finished with France winning. The model had the right result: it gave that outcome 40%, though it expected 1-0 rather than 4–1.
More →Italy 3–1 Türkiye finished with Italy winning. The model had the right result: it gave that outcome 47%, though it expected 2-1 rather than 3–1.
More →Llaneros 1–2 America de Cali finished with America de Cali winning. The model had the right result: it gave that outcome 38%, though it expected 0-1 rather than 1–2.
More →Our model leans to Botafogo here, but not by much: 44% (fair odds 2.27) against 28% for the draw. Published scoreline: 2-1, the likeliest exact score within that result.
More →Our model leans to Internacional here, but not by much: 39% (fair odds 2.56) against 31% for the draw. Published scoreline: 1-0, the likeliest exact score within that result.
More →Our model leans to RB Bragantino here, but not by much: 41% (fair odds 2.44) against 30% for the draw. Published scoreline: 1-0, the likeliest exact score within that result.
More →Croatia 0–7 England finished with England winning. The model had the right result: it gave that outcome 45%, though it expected 1-2 rather than 0–7.
More →Switzerland 2–1 Slovenia finished with Switzerland winning. The model had the right result: it gave that outcome 49%, though it expected 1-0 rather than 2–1.
More →Azerbaijan 1–0 Lithuania finished with Azerbaijan winning. Our model had called it exactly: it published 1-0, a scoreline it rated at 13%.
More →Kosovo 1–1 Austria finished with a draw. The model got this one wrong. It leaned to Austria at 41%, and rated the actual result at 30%.
More →Our model leans to Argentinos Juniors here, but not by much: 42% (fair odds 2.38) against 33% for the draw. Published scoreline: 1-0, the likeliest exact score within that result.
More →Sarmiento Junin host River Plate in a game our model cannot separate: 35% for the home side, 29% for the draw and 36% for the visitors.
More →Talleres Cordoba host Belgrano Cordoba in a game our model cannot separate: 32% for the home side, 33% for the draw and 35% for the visitors.
More →Belarus host Finland in a game our model cannot separate: 34% for the home side, 29% for the draw and 37% for the visitors.
More →