AFC Wimbledon vs Reading
League One, England · 2026-08-22 · 16:00 CET
LDWLW
LLDWWThe score model made a Reading win the most likely outcome at 46%, split on goals (Over 2.5 at 54%). It finished 0:0 (HT 0:0) — the most likely outcome did not come in. Generated from the data — the market usually knows why it disagrees.
Scoreline probabilities
Priced from the same score distribution as every market below.
First goal · head-to-head
Full Market Baseline (Dixon-Coles)
One statistical model of the final score — every probability below derives from the same score distribution, so they can never contradict each other. Expected goals: AFC Wimbledon 1.25 – 1.58 Reading.
| Market | Data % | Implied | Divergence | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AFC Wimbledon win | 30.6% | 35.2% | -4.6% | ✗ |
| Draw | 23.9% | 28.5% | -4.6% | ✓ |
| Reading win | 45.5% | 36.3% | +9.2% | ✗ |
| Over 1.5 goals | 77.1% | — | — | ✗ |
| Over 2.5 goals | 53.9% | 46.7% | +7.2% | ✗ |
| Over 3.5 goals | 31.6% | 26.9% | +4.7% | ✗ |
| Both teams to score | 56.3% | 52.7% | +3.6% | ✗ |
| HT over 0.5 goals | 66.1% | — | — | ✗ |
| HT over 1.5 goals | 28.8% | 32.1% | -3.3% | ✗ |
Model dc_v2.0 · rating sample: AFC Wimbledon 30.6 / Reading 52.8 weighted matches · positive divergence means the data leans above the market — the market usually knows why.
How to read this page: probabilities are what this league's historical first-goal-time and scoring data alone imply — they know nothing about injuries, motivation or weather, and the market usually does. We publish every output, including when the data and the market agree. Statistics, not betting advice — never bet more than you can afford to lose.