Kyoto Sanga 0–1 Machida Zelvia
Final score · Half-time 0–0 · Latest results
When the micro-edge on Machida Zelvia was recorded live, the sharp market made Machida Zelvia the most likely outcome at 51% (fair odds 1.97). On Machida Zelvia, Coolbet offered 2.00 against a fair price of 1.97, a +1.3% gap: too small to call value (Micro-edge). Recent form — Kyoto Sanga: LWLWL; Machida Zelvia: WWDWD.
After the whistle
Goals and cards
- 26' Tete Yengi · yellow card · Machida Zelvia
- 70' Everton Maceió · yellow card · Kyoto Sanga
- 70' Ranko Popović · yellow card · Kyoto Sanga
- 86' 0–1 Takahiro Akimoto · goal · Machida Zelvia
Match stats
| Match stats | Kyoto Sanga | Machida Zelvia |
|---|---|---|
| Possession % | 38 | 62 |
| Expected goals (xG) | 1.11 | 0.74 |
| Shots | 17 | 13 |
| Shots on target | 4 | 5 |
| Corners | 4 | 10 |
| Fouls | 16 | 6 |
| Offsides | 6 | 0 |
| Goalkeeper saves | 4 | 4 |
What the market said before kick-off
- Kyoto Sanga win 26% did not happen
- Draw 27% did not happen
- Machida Zelvia win 48% happened
- Over 2.5 goals 49% did not happen
- Micro-edge flagged before kick-off (under 1.5%, monitor only): 2 · Machida Zelvia @ 2.00 (Coolbet) Won
CLV -4.7% vs the fair close. One flag on its own says little; the rule is judged on all of them.
Pinnacle closing price with the margin removed, next to what happened. It is the market's view, not a tip: an outcome priced at 30% happens about 3 times in 10.
Next matches
Line-ups, events and match stats: API-Football.
Starting line-ups
Kyoto Sanga 3-4-2-1
- Halls GK
- Y. Ishida DF
- Y. Suzuki DF
- K. Nagata DF
- R. Kato MF
- S. Fukuoka MF
- H. Morooka MF
- K. Sato MF
- R. Nakano MF
- H. Arai MF
- Rafael Elias FW
Machida Zelvia 3-4-2-1
- K. Tani GK
- G. Shōji DF
- D. Okamura DF
- T. Ouwejan DF
- H. Nakamura MF
- H. Mae MF
- K. Sento MF
- Y. Soma MF
- Koki Ogawa MF
- T. Nishimura MF
- T. Yengi FW
Pinnacle, margin removed (home / draw / away): 28 / 27 / 46% when the line-ups came out, 26 / 27 / 48% at kick-off.
In the big leagues, line-up news is usually already in the price by the time it is official.
The most likely result is not the same as value: value is where a bookmaker pays more than the fair price, and the two can point to different outcomes.
Value check before kick-off Micro-edge
Market discrepancy: before kick-off, Machida Zelvia (2) was priced at 2.00 by a soft bookmaker, above the fair price of 1.97 — a +1.3% gap. An observation about the price, not an instruction to bet.
The gap was smaller than 1.5% — likely to vanish in rounding, latency or line movement. We logged it for transparency, but it was not a strong signal.
A single result where a bookmaker pays above the fair price — separate from the main prediction below.
Two most likely results
When no single result is likely enough, our pick covers the two most probable outcomes (double chance).
| 1 | X | 2 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharp, recorded | 25% | 25% | 50% |
Other estimates
| Our model | 27% | 27% | 46% |
|---|
Sharp, recorded = Pinnacle when we logged the match (it can be days old). Our model = our own estimate, which on average predicts worse than the market.
Value lifecycle Settled
“Detected” is the moment the flag was first shown on the site and written to our ledger (recorded live since 26 September 2026). For earlier matches the flag was reconstructed afterwards from the prices we had stored, and the time shown is when the rule would have fired: a backtest, not a live record. When the gap closes, we say so instead of pretending the value is still there.
Match context
Kyoto Sanga averaged 0.8 goals scored and 2.2 conceded per game over their last 5 matches in our results database; Machida Zelvia averaged 1.6 and 0.8 over 5.
Since opening around 1.94, the sharp market price on Machida Zelvia has drifted to 2.10 — the market has moved against this outcome.
These figures come from our own tracked results and odds snapshots for this fixture — not from a generic stats feed.
Market-relevant trends
We show the trend and whether it is already in the price. Most sites show the streak and let you assume you should bet it.
Why this price?
Form: most recent match first.
Recent form and head-to-head from our settled results — context behind the fair price. The price itself comes from the sharp market, not from these alone.
Public, timestamped record
Recorded when the site showed it, before kick-off. Its seal is in our public export once this match’s row is published, and in the next daily external snapshot (07:40 Bucharest time: 04:40 UTC in summer time, 05:40 UTC in winter); for flags recorded on match day that snapshot comes after kick-off, so the pre-kick-off proof is our own timestamp.
This hash fingerprints the prediction as recorded: teams, kick-off time, our model probabilities, the Pinnacle prices recorded for it (at logging or, if there were none, the first quoted after logging and before kick-off, which can be written in after the match) and the log time. A later edit to any of them would change it (a rescheduled kick-off changes it too). It does not cover closing prices, the result or the value-bet record above; value flags recorded live have their own seal in the public record. Verify in the public record →
Every day a snapshot of the full public record is published to a public Git repository and timestamped with OpenTimestamps. Timestamped snapshots are never overwritten and the Git history shows any difference, so a later change to a past row is visible by comparing two snapshots. The corrections file lists the corrections we announced. Verify on the public log →
Since 20 June 2026 the public record is snapshotted daily (07:40 Bucharest time: 04:40 UTC in summer time, 05:40 UTC in winter) to an external log. A prediction is externally timestamped before kick-off only if it was in a snapshot taken before the match; predictions logged on match day, or whose Pinnacle price was added after logging, first appear there after kick-off. Value flags have been recorded live only since 26 September 2026; earlier value flags were reconstructed on that date.
Methodology
The fair price comes from the sharp market itself: we strip the margin from Pinnacle-style odds — the most accurate public predictor in existence — and use our calibrated Elo + form model as a cross-check and as the fallback where no sharp price exists. Value is flagged only where a softer bookmaker prices a selection above that fair price, never on long shots (implied probability under 30%), and never beyond a plausible band. Most of the time there is no value — and we say so.
Measured by TipsAudit
- Most accurate football prediction site? Ranked against the closing line
- Is Statarea accurate? Audited against the closing line
- Is ProSoccer.gr accurate? Audited against the closing line
- Is FootballPredictions.net accurate? Audited against the closing line
- Independent tipster audit: verified track records
- How to check if a tipster is legit
- Can you verify a Telegram tipster? What we found reading their tips
- Are free football prediction sites accurate? We measure them in public
- Which bookmaker has the lowest margin? Live index
- Free value bet finder for football
- What is closing line value (CLV)?
- Free football predictions dataset with closing odds (CSV)
- Our full track record: every prediction, losses included