Chesterfield vs Gillingham
League Two, England · 2026-09-01 · 20:45 CET
LDLWL
LWLDDThe score model makes a Chesterfield win the most likely outcome at 57%, leaning under 2.5 (Over 2.5 at 45%). The data's biggest gap to the market: Under 3.5 goals — 76.4% vs 71.0% implied (+5.4 pts). 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: Chesterfield 1.64 – 0.83 Gillingham.
| Market | Data % | Implied | Divergence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chesterfield win | 56.8% | 60.4% | -3.6% |
| Draw | 24.2% | 23.7% | +0.5% |
| Gillingham win | 19.0% | 15.9% | +3.1% |
| Over 1.5 goals | 70.5% | — | — |
| Over 2.5 goals | 44.9% | 49.5% | -4.6% |
| Over 3.5 goals | 23.6% | 29.0% | -5.4% |
| Both teams to score | 45.3% | 48.1% | -2.8% |
| HT over 0.5 goals | 66.8% | — | — |
| HT over 1.5 goals | 31.5% | 33.7% | -2.2% |
Model dc_v2.0 · rating sample: Chesterfield 48.2 / Gillingham 57.2 weighted matches · positive divergence means the data leans above the market — the market usually knows why.
Track your pick
My record →Flat 1u, average market odds, settled either way. Not betting advice — a record, like ours.
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.