RFS vs FK Liepaja
Virsliga, Latvia · 2026-09-07 · 18:00 CET
WDWDW
WDDDLThe score model made an RFS win the most likely outcome at 78%, with goals more likely than not (Over 2.5 at 70%). 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: RFS 2.80 – 0.82 FK Liepaja.
| Market | Data % | Implied | Divergence | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RFS win | 78.3% | 69.5% | +8.8% | ✗ |
| Draw | 13.4% | 18.5% | -5.2% | ✓ |
| FK Liepaja win | 8.3% | 11.9% | -3.6% | ✗ |
| Over 1.5 goals | 87.6% | — | — | ✗ |
| Over 2.5 goals | 70.0% | 62.9% | +7.1% | ✗ |
| Over 3.5 goals | 48.9% | 42.2% | +6.6% | ✗ |
| Both teams to score | 52.6% | 52.7% | -0.1% | ✗ |
| HT over 0.5 goals | 80.9% | — | — | ✗ |
| HT over 1.5 goals | 47.9% | 43.1% | +4.8% | ✗ |
Model dc_v2.0 · rating sample: RFS 50.7 / FK Liepaja 51.7 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.