RFS vs Jelgava
Virsliga, Latvia · 2026-10-11 · 15:00 CET
DWDWW
WLDLLThe score model made an RFS win the most likely outcome at 84%, with goals more likely than not (Over 2.5 at 69%). It finished 4:2 (HT 0:1) — the most likely outcome came 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 2.94 – 0.60 Jelgava.
| Market | Data % | Implied | Divergence | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RFS win | 84.2% | 81.6% | +2.6% | ✓ |
| Draw | 11.0% | 12.4% | -1.4% | ✗ |
| Jelgava win | 4.9% | 6.0% | -1.1% | ✗ |
| Over 1.5 goals | 86.9% | — | — | ✓ |
| Over 2.5 goals | 68.7% | 67.1% | +1.5% | ✓ |
| Over 3.5 goals | 47.2% | 47.7% | -0.5% | ✓ |
| Both teams to score | 43.0% | 42.6% | +0.4% | ✓ |
| HT over 0.5 goals | 80.3% | — | — | ✓ |
| HT over 1.5 goals | 47.2% | 46.9% | +0.3% | ✗ |
Model dc_v2.0 · rating sample: RFS 50.2 / Jelgava 50.6 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.