How it finished
Chicago Fire FC beat Portland Timbers 2–1. Bawler's model had Chicago Fire FC in front at 53% before kickoff, and that is how it finished. It forecast 3.2 goals and the match produced 3. Chicago Fire FC had 8 shots (4 on target) to Portland Timbers' 11 (2), with 37% of the ball against 63%. Expected goals finished 1.5 to 1.1.
Published before kickoff and settled afterwards — misses included. Every call is time-stamped to the Bitcoin blockchain before the match so it cannot be edited later.
What we expected
Model inputs
Head to head
Common questions
Who won Chicago Fire FC vs Portland Timbers?
Chicago Fire FC beat Portland Timbers 2–1. Bawler's model had Chicago Fire FC in front at 53% before kickoff, and that is how it finished. It forecast 3.2 goals and the match produced 3. Chicago Fire FC had 8 shots (4 on target) to Portland Timbers' 11 (2), with 37% of the ball against 63%. Expected goals finished 1.5 to 1.1.
What was the final score in Chicago Fire FC vs Portland Timbers?
Chicago Fire FC 2–1 Portland Timbers, played on 16 Aug 2026 in the USA: MLS. Bawler's model had gone into it with Chicago Fire FC 53%, the draw 26% and Portland Timbers 21%.
What were the stats in Chicago Fire FC vs Portland Timbers?
Full-time: Possession 37%–63%, Expected goals (xG) 1.5–1.1, Shots 8–11, Shots on target 4–2, Shots inside box 6–7, Big chances 4–1, Corners 0–4, Saves 1–2, Fouls 15–6, Offsides 2–2, Yellow cards 2–2.
Did both teams score in Chicago Fire FC vs Portland Timbers?
Yes — both Chicago Fire FC and Portland Timbers scored, finishing 2–1. Bawler's model had put both teams scoring at 61% before kickoff.
Was Bawler's prediction for Chicago Fire FC vs Portland Timbers right?
Every call is published before kickoff and graded afterwards, misses included. On this match: Result — we said Chicago Fire FC 53%, it finished Chicago Fire FC (53% called); Total goals — we said 3.2, it finished 3; Both teams to score — we said 61%, it finished Yes; Model call — we said Over 1.5 Goals 78%, it finished Landed; Second call — we said BTTS No 51%, it finished Missed.