RFS vs Riga FC
Virsliga, Latvia · 2026-08-23 · 18:00 CET
DWDWD
LDDWWThe score model made an RFS win the most likely outcome at 43%, with goals more likely than not (Over 2.5 at 58%). It finished 3:3 (HT 0:1) — 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: RFS 1.62 – 1.38 Riga FC.
| Market | Data % | Implied | Divergence | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RFS win | 43.1% | 40.0% | +3.1% | ✗ |
| Draw | 24.2% | 27.2% | -3.0% | ✓ |
| Riga FC win | 32.8% | 32.8% | -0.0% | ✗ |
| Over 1.5 goals | 80.2% | — | — | ✓ |
| Over 2.5 goals | 57.8% | 54.2% | +3.6% | ✓ |
| Over 3.5 goals | 35.4% | 33.7% | +1.6% | ✓ |
| Both teams to score | 60.2% | 58.7% | +1.5% | ✓ |
| HT over 0.5 goals | 74.9% | — | — | ✓ |
| HT over 1.5 goals | 38.9% | 36.7% | +2.2% | ✗ |
Model dc_v2.0 · rating sample: RFS 50.3 / Riga FC 50.3 weighted matches · positive divergence means the model sits above the market — descriptive, not a recommendation; 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.