NEC Nijmegen beat PEC Zwolle 3–1. Bawler's model had NEC Nijmegen in front at 53% before kickoff, and that is how it finished. It forecast 3.3 goals and the match produced 4. PEC Zwolle had 9 shots (2 on target) to NEC Nijmegen's 8 (4), with 52% of the ball against 48%. On expected goals it was 2.0 to 2.0, so PEC Zwolle created the better chances and still lost the game.
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.
Chance of at least one first-half goal: 79%. Based on how often each side shoots and wins corners before the break, not a share of their full-match numbers.
NEC Nijmegen beat PEC Zwolle 3–1. Bawler's model had NEC Nijmegen in front at 53% before kickoff, and that is how it finished. It forecast 3.3 goals and the match produced 4. PEC Zwolle had 9 shots (2 on target) to NEC Nijmegen's 8 (4), with 52% of the ball against 48%. On expected goals it was 2.0 to 2.0, so PEC Zwolle created the better chances and still lost the game.
PEC Zwolle 1–3 NEC Nijmegen, played on 29 Aug 2026 in the Netherlands: Eredivisie. Bawler's model had gone into it with PEC Zwolle 24%, the draw 23% and NEC Nijmegen 53%.
Full-time: Possession 52%–48%, Expected goals (xG) 2.0–2.0, Shots 9–8, Shots on target 2–4, Shots inside box 7–6, Big chances 2–3, Corners 6–7, Saves 1–1, Fouls 17–12, Offsides 4–0, Yellow cards 1–3.
Yes — both PEC Zwolle and NEC Nijmegen scored, finishing 1–3. Bawler's model had put both teams scoring at 63% before kickoff.
Every call is published before kickoff and graded afterwards, misses included. On this match: Result — we said NEC Nijmegen 53%, it finished NEC Nijmegen (53% called); Total goals — we said 3.3, it finished 4; Both teams to score — we said 63%, it finished Yes; Model call — we said Over 1.5 Goals 84%, it finished Landed; Second call — we said Away Win 53%, it finished Landed.