Athletic Club1 - 1Celta Vigo
Athletic ClubWhy did AI enter 8 times at 0', 10', 15', 29', 33', 51', 58', 61' — and still finish +$178?
Match Overview
Athletic Club hosted Celta Vigo in the La Liga, finishing 1-1. Goals: W. Swedberg (4'), I. Williams (52'). OddsFlow deployed 31 trades across 8 waves, achieving 45% precision with a net result of +$177.59 (ROI: +9.9%).
Pre-Match Odds
The Asian Handicap line moved from -0.5 to -0.25; the Over/Under line shifted from 2.5 to 2.25; the home moneyline drifted out from 1.99 to 2.25.
Trade Wave Analysis
### Wave 1 — Minute 0' (Score: 0-0) **Context:** Scoreless at 0'. 1 model (S5.1_Pre) entered Moneyline markets, targeting Celta Vigo. Average expected value was 30.5%, with a combined stake of $27. The sharpest edge was on Celta Vigo (Moneyline): OddsFlow calculated 37.8% probability versus the market's implied 28.1% — a 9.7 percentage point gap at odds of 3.56. **Result:** All 2 trades lost, netting $-27.00. ### Wave 2 — Minute 10' (Score: 0-1) **Context:** Celta Vigo leading 0-1 at 10'. 1 model (oddsflow_core_v8.1) entered Asian Handicap markets, targeting Athletic Club +0.5. Average expected value was 21.0%, with a combined stake of $76. The sharpest edge was on Athletic Club +0.5 (Asian Handicap): OddsFlow calculated 73.6% probability versus the market's implied 54.8% — a 18.8 percentage point gap at odds of 1.825. **Result:** All 1 trades won, netting +$62.70. ### Wave 3 — Minute 15' (Score: 0-1) **Context:** Celta Vigo leading 0-1 at 15'. 2 models (system4_BLEND_v10, system4_MC_v10) entered Asian Handicap and Moneyline and Over/Under markets, targeting Athletic Club +0.5 and Celta Vigo and Over 2.5 and Over 3. Average expected value was 19.1%, with a combined stake of $626. The sharpest edge was on Athletic Club +0.5 (Asian Handicap): OddsFlow calculated 74.8% probability versus the market's implied 53.3% — a 21.4 percentage point gap at odds of 1.875. **Result:** 2 of 11 trades won, netting $-327.87. ### Wave 4 — Minute 29' (Score: 0-1) **Context:** Celta Vigo leading 0-1 at 29'. 1 model (system4_HYBRID_v10) entered Moneyline and Asian Handicap markets, targeting Celta Vigo and Athletic Club +0.5. Average expected value was 19.2%, with a combined stake of $226. The sharpest edge was on Athletic Club +0.5 (Asian Handicap): OddsFlow calculated 75.0% probability versus the market's implied 54.1% — a 21.0 percentage point gap at odds of 1.85. **Result:** 1 of 4 trades won, netting $-76.15. ### Wave 5 — Minute 33' (Score: 0-1) **Context:** Celta Vigo leading 0-1 at 33'. 2 models (system4_BLEND_v10, system4_MC_v10) entered Over/Under markets, targeting Under 3.5 and Under 2.5. Average expected value was 34.1%, with a combined stake of $420. The sharpest edge was on Under 2.5 (Over/Under): OddsFlow calculated 72.4% probability versus the market's implied 48.8% — a 23.6 percentage point gap at odds of 2.05. **Result:** All 6 trades won, netting +$370.96. ### Wave 6 — Minute 51' (Score: 0-1) **Context:** Celta Vigo leading 0-1 at 51'. 3 models (system4_HYBRID_v10, system4_MC_v10, system4_BLEND_v10) entered Over/Under and Moneyline markets, targeting Under 2.5 and Draw and Athletic Club and Over 2.5. Average expected value was 14.0%, with a combined stake of $240. The sharpest edge was on Over 2.5 (Over/Under): OddsFlow calculated 70.0% probability versus the market's implied 42.1% — a 27.9 percentage point gap at odds of 2.375. **Result:** 2 of 4 trades won, netting +$45.96. ### Wave 7 — Minute 58' (Score: 1-1) **Context:** Level at 1-1 after I. Williams's equalizer at 52'. 1 model (system4_BLEND_v10) entered Moneyline markets, targeting Draw. Average expected value was 6.5%, with a combined stake of $60. The sharpest edge was on Draw (Moneyline): OddsFlow calculated 38.2% probability versus the market's implied 32.3% — a 6.0 percentage point gap at odds of 3.1. **Result:** All 1 trades won, netting +$126.00. ### Wave 8 — Minute 61' (Score: 1-1) **Context:** Level at 1-1 after I. Williams's equalizer at 52'. 1 model (system4_HYBRID_v10) entered Over/Under and Moneyline markets, targeting Over 2.5 and Draw. Average expected value was 7.1%, with a combined stake of $120. **Result:** 1 of 2 trades won, netting +$3.00.
Key Mispricing Moments
- **Minute 52'** — Over/Under Over 2.5: AI saw 70.0% vs market's 42.1% (27.9pp gap). did not convert, but edge was real. - **Minute 33'** — Over/Under Under 2.5: AI saw 72.4% vs market's 48.8% (23.6pp gap). correctly identified. - **Minute 33'** — Over/Under Under 2.5: AI saw 71.6% vs market's 48.8% (22.8pp gap). correctly identified. - **Minute 33'** — Over/Under Under 2.5: AI saw 72.4% vs market's 49.8% (22.7pp gap). correctly identified. - **Minute 33'** — Over/Under Under 2.5: AI saw 71.6% vs market's 49.8% (21.8pp gap). correctly identified.
Model Performance
- **system4_BLEND_v10**: 10 trades, 5W/5L, +$135.48 (ROI: +22.7%) - **oddsflow_core_v8.1**: 1 trades, 1W/0L, +$62.70 (ROI: +82.5%) - **system4_MC_v10**: 11 trades, 5W/6L, +$39.60 (ROI: +5.7%) - **S5.1_Pre**: 2 trades, 0W/2L, $-27.00 (ROI: -100.0%) - **system4_HYBRID_v10**: 7 trades, 3W/4L, $-33.19 (ROI: -8.2%)
Match Statistics
Possession was 58–42 in Athletic Club's favor. Athletic Club had 24 shots (8 on target) versus Celta Vigo's 3 (2 on target). Expected goals: Athletic Club 2.32 — Celta Vigo 0.15. Corners: 5-0.
Verdict
A positive result for OddsFlow with +9.9% ROI. The models found genuine edges though not all converted. Top performer: system4_BLEND_v10 at +$135.48.
What the closing market expected
The prices bookmakers settled on before kick-off, with the margin removed, next to what actually happened.
| Market | Line | Implied probability |
|---|---|---|
| 1X2 (home / draw / away) | Favourite: Home | 44.4% / 30.2% / 28.1% |
| Asian handicap | -0.25 | 51.8% |
| Over / Under | 2.25 | 52.1% |
Probabilities are de-vigged, so they describe the market's view rather than the price you would have been offered.
The market significantly undervalued the probability of a draw.
The La Liga clash between Athletic Club and Celta Vigo concluded in a 1-1 draw. In the 1x2 market, the closing line implied Athletic Club as slight favorites with a 44.44% win probability, while the draw was priced at 30.21%. The actual outcome of a draw indicates the market significantly undervalued this result, presenting a clear value signal. On the Asian Handicap (-0.25), Athletic Club was favored to cover with a 51.81% probability. The 1-1 draw resulted in a half-loss for Athletic Club (-0.25) backers, highlighting an overestimation of their winning potential. For the Totals (Over/Under 2.25), the market leaned slightly towards the Over with 52.08% probability. However, the final tally of 2 goals meant that Under 2.25 was a half-win, suggesting the market mildly overestimated goal expectancy.
A positive result with +9.9% ROI. The models found genuine edges, finishing at +$177.59. Top performer: Active Trader at +$135.48.
See AI signals as they happen
This report shows settled results. Get real-time AI signals during live matches.