Hull City v Ipswich Town
Match result
The bar is the model's probability; the caret on the same scale is the market's, with the margin removed. The distance between them is the disagreement.
27 markets
Model fair prices, computed as 1 / probability from a Dixon-Coles score matrix. No bookmaker margin is included, and no bookmaker is quoting these. A real price will be shorter than every number here.
Hull City has only 8 completed matches in the training window, so its fitted strength is imprecise. Treat the long prices in this book as arithmetic rather than information: a real bookmaker would quote a much shorter price on the outsider.
Matches behind each fit: Hull City 8 · Ipswich Town 46What is driving this
Computed arithmetic, not generated text. Each driver is a stored quantity: the Elo difference replayed from results, points per game over the last five matches, rolling expected goals, and each absent player's share of team expected goals.
Both sides
Head to head over 2 meetings in the seasons held (Premier League from 2021-22, Championship from 2024-25): HUL 0, drawn 0, IPS 2. Cup ties and earlier seasons are not included, so a full-history site will show more.
Bookmaker prices
Real bookmaker prices, collected from published market data.
| Market | Selection | Best | Book | Implied | N |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| h2h | away | 2.86 | Betfair Exchange | 35.0% | 49 |
| h2h | draw | 3.50 | Smarkets | 28.6% | 49 |
| h2h | home | 2.99 | 1xBet | 33.4% | 49 |
Hull City
Share of attacking output is what moves the number, so it is shown rather than implied.
Ipswich Town
Share of attacking output is what moves the number, so it is shown rather than implied.
Re-price without a player
Removing a player scales that side's expected goals by their share of recent attacking output, then rebuilds the score matrix. Every market moves together.
Written summary
Written by gpt-5.6-terra from the numbers above, which it cannot add to or override.
The model has Ipswich Town marginally ahead at 35.4%, with the draw at 34.4% and Hull City at 30.1%. Expected goals are 0.87 for Hull and 1.0 for Ipswich. The low scoring profile is reflected in a 28.9% chance of over 2.5 goals and a 37.7% both-teams-to-score probability. The market is more positive on Hull, pricing them at 37.0% against the model’s 30.1%. It is lower on the draw, at 28.5% versus 34.4%, while Ipswich are close to the model at 34.6%. The model scorecard does not beat the market. Hull have no wins in 5, with 3 draws and 2 losses, and have conceded 8 goals from 9.4 xG. Ipswich have 2 wins, 1 draw and 2 losses, but conceded 8 goals from 12.1 xG. Ipswich have won both recent head-to-head meetings. No measured absences are listed, though Hull have 17 further unmeasured absentees, so their impact cannot be quantified.
Where the model differs from a price
Shown with the model's own record, because that is what decides how much these are worth.
How this model actually scores
Dixon-Coles bivariate Poisson fitted to Premier League results with exponential time decay. Statistical model, no language model involved.
| Metric | Model | Market | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ranked probability score | 0.2047 | 0.1965 | +0.0082 |
| Log loss | 0.9882 | 0.9623 | +0.0259 |
| Brier | 0.5883 | 0.5711 | +0.0172 |
| Accuracy | 52.5% | 54.8% | −2.3 pp |
Lower is better for the first three. These probabilities are for reading a fixture, not for expecting profit against closing prices. What these numbers mean