FIFA World Cup 2026 as a Contamination-Free Benchmark for LLM Forecasting Agents: Four Models, a Bookmaker, and 104 Matches
Paper • 2607.17765 • Published • 1
model string | match_id string | phase string | stage string | team_a string | team_b string | final_score_a int64 | final_score_b int64 | outcome string | decided_by string | advanced string | p_a float64 | p_draw float64 | p_b float64 | bet_pick string | bet_stake int64 | reasoning string | refl_outcome string | refl_calibrated bool | refl_luck string | refl_missed string | refl_overweighted string | refl_bet_diff string | refl_conf float64 | argmax int64 | pick_outcome string | correct bool | p_actual float64 | brier float64 | logloss float64 | conf float64 | odds_home_dec float64 | odds_draw_dec float64 | odds_away_dec float64 | imp_home float64 | imp_draw float64 | imp_away float64 | mnum int64 | market_fav int64 | market_fav_outcome string | staked float64 | profit float64 | is_bet bool | win bool | contrarian bool | edge float64 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
claude | m01 | group | group | Mexico | South Africa | 2 | 0 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.66 | 0.21 | 0.13 | team_a_win | 25 | Mexico (Team A) are strong favorites at home in Estadio Azteca, aided by ~2,250m altitude that disadvantages sea-level South Africa, excellent recent defensive form (conceding ~2 goals in 8 internationals, six clean sheets), and a deeper, more experienced squad. Market odds (~-209 to -240, implying ~68-70%) and models ... | correct | true | neither | none | South Africa's defensive setup as a drag on goal expectancy — they conceded twice, so the cautious 5-3-2 was less effective than I implied when leaning toward a low-scoring margin. | no, the T-30min no-bet was correct in process terms — Mexico won as expected but at ~-240 the price offered no edge, and being right about the outcome doesn't validate a -EV wager. | 0.82 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.66 | 0.1766 | 0.415515 | 0.66 | 1.4 | 4.6 | 8 | 0.676 | 0.2057 | 0.1183 | 1 | 0 | team_a_win | 25 | 10 | true | true | false | -0.016 |
claude | m02 | group | group | Korea Republic | Czechia | 2 | 1 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.43 | 0.27 | 0.3 | team_a_win | 30 | The Opta supercomputer rates South Korea favourites at 42.9% vs Czechia's 31.1% with a 26% draw, and Korea's superior attacking talent (Son Heung-min) plus strong unbeaten qualifying form give them an edge in this open group opener. FanDuel's +165 price on Korea implies roughly 38% which is below my ~43% estimate, offe... | correct | true | neither | none — I correctly flagged Czechia's set-piece threat as the realistic path to them scoring, and they did get one, consistent with a 2-1 outcome | the BTTS-No/under signals, which I cited as a reason to trim the stake but which didn't materialize since this was a 2-1, both-teams-scored, over-2.5 result | no — Korea at +155 with my ~42% estimate was a sound positive-EV value pick that landed, and the modest stake was appropriate given the genuine closeness of the match | 0.8 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.43 | 0.4878 | 0.84397 | 0.43 | 2.55 | 3.15 | 2.85 | 0.3698 | 0.2994 | 0.3309 | 2 | 0 | team_a_win | 30 | 46.5 | true | true | false | 0.0602 |
claude | m03 | group | group | USA | Paraguay | 4 | 1 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.46 | 0.29 | 0.25 | no_bet | 0 | USA are modest home favorites (~-105/+105 ML, Paraguay +310, draw ~+240) with home-crowd advantage at SoFi and no reported injuries, but they've lost 3 of their last 4 while Alfaro's Paraguay arrive unbeaten in 8 (wins over Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay) with an elite defensive structure, though key man Julio Enciso is an... | partially_correct | false | neither | I underweighted USA's home-crowd ceiling and the chance that Paraguay's defense-first approach would break down decisively once they conceded; a 4-1 scoreline implies USA's attacking quality was higher than the market or I credited. | I gave too much weight to Paraguay's unbeaten run and defensive solidity, and to USA's poor recent form (3 losses in 4), treating the matchup as nearly a coin flip when the talent and venue gap was larger than priced. | no, because the outcome was correct directionally but the market was efficiently priced and a 4-1 result was a low-probability tail even conditional on a USA win, so a 'no_bet' on a fairly-priced favorite was still the disciplined call ex ante. | 0.6 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.46 | 0.4382 | 0.776529 | 0.46 | 1.952381 | 3.4 | 4.2 | 0.4904 | 0.2816 | 0.228 | 3 | 0 | team_a_win | 0 | 0 | false | null | null | null |
claude | m04 | group | group | Canada | Bosnia and Herzegovina | 1 | 1 | draw | regulation | null | 0.55 | 0.27 | 0.18 | team_a_win | 35 | Canada are strong home favorites (-120 market odds, Opta supercomputer 58.3% win probability), unbeaten in their last eight matches with six clean sheets and only one loss in 28 games at BMO Field. Bosnia upset Italy to qualify but sit ~34 places below Canada in FIFA rankings and have drawn five straight in regulation.... | incorrect | true | unlucky | Bosnia's run of consecutive regulation draws signaled a genuinely stubborn, hard-to-break-down side, which I noted but did not weight enough into the draw probability given a likely low-scoring game. | Home-crowd advantage and Canada's clean-sheet streak, which I leaned on to push the win probability to 0.55 despite Canada's complete lack of any prior World Cup win or draw. | no, the bet had positive expected value at the offered odds and a 27% draw estimate priced the realized outcome reasonably; one losing wager on a well-calibrated edge doesn't invalidate the process. | 0.7 | 0 | team_a_win | false | 0.27 | 0.8678 | 1.309333 | 0.55 | 1.833333 | 3.65 | 4.7 | 0.5284 | 0.2654 | 0.2061 | 4 | 0 | team_a_win | 35 | -35 | true | false | false | 0.0216 |
claude | m05 | group | group | Qatar | Switzerland | 1 | 1 | draw | regulation | null | 0.08 | 0.15 | 0.77 | team_b_win | 25 | Switzerland enter in strong unbeaten qualifying form with clearly superior squad depth (Xhaka, Akanji, Embolo, Ndoye), while Qatar have failed to score in roughly four of their last five matches and looked incohesive in pre-tournament friendlies after canceled fixtures. Market consensus (Opta 76%, Kalshi ~81%, bookmake... | incorrect | true | unlucky | I noted that tournament openers can be cagey and that Qatar would sit deep to frustrate, but I did not weight Qatar's defensive organization and Switzerland's tendency toward slim, low-scoring margins heavily enough toward an outright draw. | Qatar's prolonged goal drought and incohesive friendlies — I treated their inability to score as more permanent than it was, when a single deep-block plus one moment was enough to claim a point. | no, a 15% draw probability against ~-334 favorite odds still justified a small stake on Switzerland; the result was within the expected variance and one outcome does not invalidate the process. | 0.7 | 2 | team_b_win | false | 0.15 | 1.3218 | 1.89712 | 0.77 | 12 | 6.5 | 1.222222 | 0.079 | 0.1458 | 0.7753 | 5 | 2 | team_b_win | 25 | -25 | true | false | false | -0.0053 |
claude | m06 | group | group | Brazil | Morocco | 1 | 1 | draw | regulation | null | 0.58 | 0.24 | 0.18 | team_a_win | 25 | Brazil are clear favorites at roughly -167/-175 (market-implied ~62%), with a deeper, more talented squad under Ancelotti. Morocco are genuinely dangerous (2022 semifinalists, reigning AFCON champions, beat Brazil 2-1 in 2023) with injury concerns to Mazraoui and Rahimi, so I shade slightly below the market and avoid o... | incorrect | true | unlucky | Morocco's defensive organization and ability to frustrate elite attacking sides—the same traits that carried them to the 2022 semifinals were likely to neutralize Brazil's front line in a low-event opener. | Brazil's individual talent advantage, which matters less in a single tournament opener where rust, pressure, and a disciplined opponent compress the quality gap. | no, because a draw was my second-most-likely outcome at 24% and Brazil winning was correctly the modal scenario; one result doesn't invalidate a probabilistically sound bet, and I appropriately kept the stake small at $25. | 0.7 | 0 | team_a_win | false | 0.24 | 0.9464 | 1.427116 | 0.58 | 1.598802 | 3.9 | 5 | 0.5781 | 0.237 | 0.1849 | 6 | 0 | team_a_win | 25 | -25 | true | false | false | 0.0019 |
claude | m07 | group | group | Haiti | Scotland | 0 | 1 | team_b_win | regulation | team_b | 0.21 | 0.26 | 0.53 | team_b_win | 30 | Opta's supercomputer gives Scotland ~59% and the market lists them around -188/-225, reflecting a clear gap in squad quality (Premier League/UEFA-tested players like McTominay, Adams, Doak). Haiti are the second-lowest ranked nation (83rd) and conceded heavily in qualifying (13 goals, 11.7 xG against), though they show... | correct | true | neither | none — I correctly anticipated a tight, low-scoring grind, which the 1-0 scoreline reflects almost exactly (close to the 0-1 several previews projected) | Haiti's attacking upside from the 4-0 New Zealand result; they were kept off the scoresheet, suggesting their qualifying defensive frailties mattered more than their warm-up scoring | no — Scotland win was the value pick, the moderate stake was appropriate given the narrow scoreline showed real margin-of-error, and the result validated both the probabilities and the cautious sizing | 0.82 | 2 | team_b_win | true | 0.53 | 0.3326 | 0.634878 | 0.53 | 6.25 | 4.75 | 1.588235 | 0.16 | 0.2105 | 0.6295 | 7 | 2 | team_b_win | 30 | 17.647059 | true | true | false | -0.0995 |
claude | m08 | group | group | Australia | Türkiye | 2 | 0 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.3 | 0.27 | 0.43 | team_b_win | 25 | The market prices Turkey as clear favorites (~-135), backed by superior individual quality (Güler, Yildiz, Çalhanoğlu), recent competitive sharpness against elite opposition (2-2 vs Spain), and a marginally better FIFA ranking, whereas Australia has shown vulnerability against technically superior, pressing teams. The ... | incorrect | true | unlucky | Australia's defensive discipline and counterattacking threat were more potent against this specific opponent than I credited; a 2-0 margin suggests Turkey's creative core was effectively neutralized, which I underweighted. | I leaned too heavily on the betting market's framing of Turkey's individual quality (Güler, Yildiz, Çalhanoğlu) translating into match control, rather than weighing how often technical favorites underperform in single tournament fixtures. | no, because the pre-match information genuinely favored Turkey and a single 2-0 loss doesn't invalidate a process that correctly priced them as the rational lean—my 43% on Turkey already reflected real uncertainty. | 0.6 | 2 | team_b_win | false | 0.3 | 0.7478 | 1.203973 | 0.43 | 5 | 3.75 | 1.7 | 0.1896 | 0.2528 | 0.5576 | 8 | 2 | team_b_win | 25 | -25 | true | false | false | -0.1276 |
claude | m09 | group | group | Germany | Curaçao | 7 | 1 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.92 | 0.06 | 0.02 | no_bet | 0 | Germany (FIFA #10, on a nine-match winning streak) are overwhelming favorites at roughly 1/20 against World Cup debutant Curaçao, the smallest nation ever to qualify and losers of three of their last four. The implied win odds (~95%) offer essentially no value — a $100 stake on Germany returns only ~$3.70 profit — whil... | correct | true | neither | I slightly underweighted the margin of victory — a 7-1 scoreline confirms the over-goals markets the previews flagged were the real edge, not the win/draw/loss line I focused on. | I gave nonzero weight to a Curaçao goal as part of a possible 'tighter than expected' narrative from one preview, but the result showed Germany's dominance was total despite Curaçao managing a consolation goal. | no, the no-bet on the match line was still correct given the ~1/20 odds offered no value, though the over-4.5-goals market would have been the genuinely profitable play I correctly identified but didn't act on. | 0.85 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.92 | 0.0104 | 0.083382 | 0.92 | 1.04 | 19 | 34 | 0.9214 | 0.0504 | 0.0282 | 9 | 0 | team_a_win | 0 | 0 | false | null | null | null |
claude | m10 | group | group | Netherlands | Japan | 2 | 2 | draw | regulation | null | 0.5 | 0.27 | 0.23 | team_a_win | 30 | Netherlands are clear favorites (Opta supercomputer 49.2%, Kalshi 49%, bookmakers ~+100/+112) anchored by a Van Dijk-led defense that conceded just 4 goals in qualifying, while Japan are missing key attackers Mitoma, Minamino and Endo. The best Netherlands moneyline price (+112 / 2.12 decimal) implies ~47% but my estim... | incorrect | true | unlucky | Despite noting Netherlands had not been airtight defensively, I underweighted Japan's ability to score multiple goals even with their attacking absences—their counter-attacking threat materialized into a draw, the exact 'live shared result' the goal markets were signaling. | The strength of the Van Dijk-anchored Dutch defense, which I treated as potentially the best at the tournament but which conceded twice. | no, the bet had positive expected value at the price given my ~50% estimate and a 27% draw probability is an inherent risk I correctly priced; one losing wager on a sound process does not invalidate the decision. | 0.7 | 0 | team_a_win | false | 0.27 | 0.8358 | 1.309333 | 0.5 | 2 | 3.5 | 3.6 | 0.4701 | 0.2687 | 0.2612 | 10 | 0 | team_a_win | 30 | -30 | true | false | false | 0.0299 |
claude | m11 | group | group | Côte d'Ivoire | Ecuador | 1 | 0 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.32 | 0.3 | 0.38 | team_b_win | 25 | Ecuador enter unbeaten since a 2024 loss to Brazil, conceded just one goal in qualifying, and are missing nothing significant, while Côte d'Ivoire will be without injured center-back Evan N'Dicka. Both sides are defensively disciplined, so a tight, low-scoring game with high draw equity is likely; Ecuador's superior de... | incorrect | true | unlucky | I underweighted Côte d'Ivoire's individual attacking quality on the wings (Diomande, Diallo) being able to convert a single chance even against a watertight defense, and possibly overweighted N'Dicka's absence given their squad depth. | Ecuador's unbeaten run and defensive record—form streaks against weaker opposition don't guarantee they outperform a quality opponent in a single low-event game. | no, the probabilities were close to a three-way toss-up and Ecuador was a defensible small-value pick; one binary result shouldn't overturn process-sound reasoning. | 0.7 | 2 | team_b_win | false | 0.32 | 0.6968 | 1.139434 | 0.38 | 3.5 | 2.75 | 2.4 | 0.268 | 0.3411 | 0.3909 | 11 | 2 | team_b_win | 25 | -25 | true | false | false | -0.0109 |
claude | m12 | group | group | Sweden | Tunisia | 5 | 1 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.53 | 0.27 | 0.2 | team_a_win | 30 | Sweden's attacking trio of Gyokeres, Isak and Elanga gives them a clear edge over a Tunisia side that conceded heavily in warm-ups (0-1 Austria, 0-5 Belgium) and may be without injured star Hannibal Mejbri. Opta models Sweden at 52.3% vs Tunisia 22.7%, closely matching market odds around -110/-115, so there's little va... | correct | true | neither | I underweighted the margin: Sweden's attacking talent and Tunisia's 0-5 collapse vs Belgium signaled blowout potential, yet I still priced meaningful draw risk (0.27) rather than leaning harder into a comfortable Sweden win. | Tunisia's defensive organization and clean CAF qualifying record, which I let inflate the draw probability despite clear evidence their backline crumbled against quality attacks in warm-ups. | no, the team_a_win pick was correct and well-reasoned, though in hindsight a goals or handicap market would have offered better value given the lopsided final score. | 0.8 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.53 | 0.3338 | 0.634878 | 0.53 | 1.9 | 3.4 | 4.333333 | 0.5007 | 0.2798 | 0.2195 | 12 | 0 | team_a_win | 30 | 27 | true | true | false | 0.0293 |
claude | m13 | group | group | Spain | Cabo Verde | 0 | 0 | draw | regulation | null | 0.82 | 0.13 | 0.05 | no_bet | 0 | Spain (FIFA #2, reigning Euro champions, 30 matches unbeaten) are heavy favorites at roughly -1100 to -1400 ML against debutants Cabo Verde (#67), implying ~85%+ win probability with no value left for a bettor. Although Yamal and Nico Williams may be eased back from hamstring injuries, Spain's squad depth still dwarfs ... | incorrect | false | neither | World Cup openers are often cagey, low-scoring affairs, and a heavy favorite easing back injured key attackers (Yamal, Nico Williams) can struggle to break down a deep, motivated debutant defense parking the bus. | Spain's overall quality gap and unbeaten streak, which I converted into an 82% win probability without enough discount for opening-match caution and finishing variance against a packed defense. | no, my no_bet decision was correct on a no-value favorite, and a 0-0 draw vindicates avoiding the team_a_win stake the odds were tempting toward. | 0.7 | 0 | team_a_win | false | 0.13 | 1.4318 | 2.040221 | 0.82 | 1.098912 | 14.29 | 25 | 0.8922 | 0.0686 | 0.0392 | 13 | 0 | team_a_win | 0 | 0 | false | null | null | null |
claude | m14 | group | group | IR Iran | New Zealand | 2 | 2 | draw | regulation | null | 0.52 | 0.27 | 0.21 | team_a_win | 30 | Iran enter on a three-game winning run with superior tournament experience and a clear quality edge through Taremi, aligning with the Opta supercomputer's 53.8% win probability versus New Zealand's 20.4%. New Zealand are the lowest-ranked side in the field, have won just one of their last 11 games, and have never won a... | incorrect | true | unlucky | I underweighted New Zealand's set-piece threat through Chris Wood, which was repeatedly flagged as their clearest path to goal and likely produced their two strikes despite their poor general form. | I gave too much weight to Iran's three-game winning run and tournament experience while underplaying the concrete warning signs of rust from their domestic league suspension and patchy scoring against organized defenses. | no, the draw probability I assigned (27%) was reasonable and a single 2-2 result doesn't invalidate Iran being the correct favorite; the stake was appropriately modest given the acknowledged disruptions. | 0.7 | 0 | team_a_win | false | 0.27 | 0.8474 | 1.309333 | 0.52 | 1.833333 | 3.4 | 4.75 | 0.5194 | 0.2801 | 0.2005 | 14 | 0 | team_a_win | 30 | -30 | true | false | false | 0.0006 |
claude | m15 | group | group | Saudi Arabia | Uruguay | 1 | 1 | draw | regulation | null | 0.14 | 0.21 | 0.65 | team_b_win | 25 | Uruguay are heavy favorites (Opta supercomputer ~64.7%, bet365 -200), sitting 45 FIFA places above Saudi Arabia with a vastly superior squad led by Núñez and Valverde, while Saudi Arabia are in poor form (one win in seven). The main risks are Bielsa's low-scoring tendency and Uruguay's defensive injuries, so I value Ur... | incorrect | true | unlucky | I underweighted how effectively Saudi Arabia's deep-block, frustrate-and-counter setup could neutralize Uruguay, combined with Bielsa's persistent inability to have his sides score more than once per game—both signals I noted but didn't fully price in. | The raw squad-quality and FIFA-ranking gap, which matters less in a single low-event match where a disciplined underdog can hold a favorite to one goal. | no, the 25% Uruguay-win stake was reasonable expected value at -200 given a genuine ~65% edge, and a single adverse outcome doesn't invalidate the process—though the draw's +333 live equity I flagged is exactly what hit. | 0.7 | 2 | team_b_win | false | 0.21 | 1.0662 | 1.560648 | 0.65 | 8.33 | 3.8 | 1.471698 | 0.113 | 0.2476 | 0.6394 | 15 | 2 | team_b_win | 25 | -25 | true | false | false | 0.0106 |
claude | m16 | group | group | Belgium | Egypt | 1 | 1 | draw | regulation | null | 0.58 | 0.25 | 0.17 | team_a_win | 35 | Belgium are unbeaten in 13 (5-0 over Tunisia in their final warm-up), top a deeper squad with De Bruyne, Doku and Courtois, and sit well above Egypt in quality, though Egypt's Salah/Marmoush transition threat and Belgium's shaky defense keep a draw live. Market consensus (Kalshi ~61% Belgium, bet365 -150) aligns with m... | incorrect | true | unlucky | I underweighted how effectively Egypt's compact double pivot could neutralize De Bruyne and how Salah/Marmoush in transition could exploit Belgium's defense for a goal—exactly the risk I named but priced too low. | Belgium's 13-match unbeaten run and 5-0 Tunisia rout, which were partly inflated by weak opposition and didn't reflect their genuine defensive fragility against a quality counter-attacking side. | no, the 58% Belgium win probability and 25% draw I assigned were reasonable, my stake was appropriately conservative, and a draw landing in a quarter-likelihood outcome doesn't invalidate the process. | 0.75 | 0 | team_a_win | false | 0.25 | 0.9278 | 1.386294 | 0.58 | 1.645161 | 3.85 | 5.25 | 0.5745 | 0.2455 | 0.18 | 16 | 0 | team_a_win | 35 | -35 | true | false | false | 0.0055 |
claude | m17 | group | group | Austria | Jordan | 3 | 1 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.67 | 0.21 | 0.12 | draw | 15 | Austria are clear favorites (market ~ -300, ~70%) with the deeper, more experienced squad, Rangnick's pressing and a strong defensive record, while Jordan are missing top qualifying scorer Al-Naimat and will likely sit deep on their World Cup debut. I price Austria slightly below market because World Cup openers tend t... | correct | true | neither | I underweighted how decisively Austria's squad and attacking superiority would translate into a comfortable multi-goal win, especially with Jordan's forward line gutted by the loss of top scorer Al-Naimat leaving them unable to punish. | The 'World Cup opener will be cagey/low-scoring' narrative and Jordan's ability to frustrate by sitting deep, which led me to inflate the draw probability above the market and bet on it. | yes, I'd drop the draw stake since it was a contrarian lean against an efficient market with no real edge, and either no-bet or back the favorite. | 0.8 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.67 | 0.1674 | 0.400478 | 0.67 | 1.384615 | 4.7 | 8 | 0.6813 | 0.2007 | 0.1179 | 17 | 0 | team_a_win | 15 | -15 | true | false | true | 0.0093 |
claude | m18 | group | group | France | Senegal | 3 | 1 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.63 | 0.21 | 0.16 | team_b_win | 12 | France are clear favorites with elite attacking depth (Mbappé, Dembélé, Olise) and strong form, and models/markets cluster them around 63-68% (Opta 64.8%, Kalshi 68%, devigged books ~65%). But the favorite is priced at heavy juice (-210/-220) and the draw at ~+340, leaving both negative-EV against my estimates; only Se... | partially_correct | true | neither | I underweighted how decisively France's superior attacking class would convert chance volume into multiple goals; Senegal scored as I expected, but the quality gap produced a comfortable 3-1 rather than the tight one-goal game I pictured. | The 'leaky French back line / 2002 upset / tournament-opener variance' narrative, which inflated Senegal to 16% and, worse, justified a contrarian long-shot bet. | yes — the Senegal edge (16% vs ~14% implied) was within estimation noise and Kelly sized it near zero (~$2), so the disciplined call was no_bet rather than a $12 stake, and backing the favorite was -EV behind the juice. | 0.8 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.63 | 0.2066 | 0.462035 | 0.63 | 1.454545 | 4.5 | 7 | 0.6532 | 0.2111 | 0.1357 | 18 | 0 | team_a_win | 12 | -12 | true | false | true | 0.0243 |
claude | m19 | group | group | Iraq | Norway | 1 | 4 | team_b_win | regulation | team_b | 0.08 | 0.15 | 0.77 | no_bet | 0 | Norway are clear favourites: a flawless UEFA qualifying campaign (8/8 wins, 37 goals, 5 conceded), Haaland (16 qualifying goals), Ødegaard and Sørloth, versus an Iraq side that qualified last via a playoff and is set up by Graham Arnold to sit deep and frustrate. My ~0.77 Norway estimate matches the Opta supercomputer ... | correct | true | neither | Norway's attacking ceiling in this specific game — my reasoning hinted at a low-scoring 1-0/2-0 win, while their qualifying scoring rate (4.6/game) should have flagged a multi-goal margin as very plausible. | Iraq's defensive resilience under Arnold — I leaned on the 'deep block frustrates the favourite' narrative, but Norway's quality produced a comfortable rout rather than the tight grind I implied. | no — no_bet was process-correct because Norway's de-vigged price (~82%) still exceeded my ~77% estimate, and one favourite winning doesn't retroactively create the edge that was absent. | 0.8 | 2 | team_b_win | true | 0.77 | 0.0818 | 0.261365 | 0.77 | 13 | 7 | 1.2 | 0.073 | 0.1357 | 0.7913 | 19 | 2 | team_b_win | 0 | 0 | false | null | null | null |
claude | m20 | group | group | Argentina | Algeria | 3 | 0 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.7 | 0.19 | 0.11 | no_bet | 0 | Argentina (defending champions, Messi/Alvarez/Lautaro, 7-game win streak) are heavy favorites over a competent but clearly weaker Algeria; my estimate (~70/19/11) matches the no-vig market almost exactly (DraftKings/FanDuel ~ -255/-270, Kalshi 71/20/11). Because there's no meaningful gap between my probabilities and th... | correct | true | neither | I slightly underweighted how total Argentina's control would be — a 3-0 clean sheet sits at the dominant end of my distribution — though one match is thin evidence and doesn't really prove miscalibration. | The upset/draw risk: ~30% combined on draw-or-Algeria partly reflected Messi's hamstring management and the 2022 Saudi-opener cautionary tale, neither of which materialized. | no — the result confirms the favorite but the prices were still efficient with no positive-EV edge, and changing my call based on one outcome would be results-oriented thinking. | 0.82 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.7 | 0.1382 | 0.356675 | 0.7 | 1.408163 | 4.76 | 9.09 | 0.6893 | 0.2039 | 0.1068 | 20 | 0 | team_a_win | 0 | 0 | false | null | null | null |
claude | m21 | group | group | Portugal | Congo DR | 1 | 1 | draw | regulation | null | 0.75 | 0.17 | 0.08 | no_bet | 0 | Portugal are elite and in excellent form (one loss in their last 13), while DR Congo are 46th-ranked debutants returning after 52 years, so a Portugal win is clearly most likely. However, the market already prices Portugal at roughly -360 (implied ~0.74 no-vig), which matches my own estimate, so the money line offers n... | partially_correct | true | neither | The elevated base rate of cagey, low-scoring World Cup openers where heavy favorites drop points, plus the difficulty of breaking down a motivated, physically strong debutant defense parking the bus. | Portugal's gaudy recent scoring form (the nine-goal qualifier and over-2.5 friendlies), which I let imply a comfortable win rather than treating tournament-opener conditions as a dampener. | no, my no_bet call was vindicated since a Portugal money-line stake at -360 would have lost and the draw confirmed there was no value in the favorite. | 0.7 | 0 | team_a_win | false | 0.17 | 1.2578 | 1.771957 | 0.75 | 1.27027 | 5.6 | 12 | 0.7504 | 0.1702 | 0.0794 | 21 | 0 | team_a_win | 0 | 0 | false | null | null | null |
claude | m22 | group | group | England | Croatia | 4 | 2 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.56 | 0.25 | 0.19 | team_a_win | 35 | England enter as clear favorites (~-140), riding 11 straight competitive wins and a perfect 8-for-8 qualifying campaign with zero goals conceded, and have beaten this aging, out-of-form Croatia side in their last two meetings. My ~56% estimate aligns with both the Opta supercomputer (55.9%) and the de-vigged market, so... | correct | true | neither | I underweighted how open and high-scoring the game would be—Croatia scored twice, contradicting the consensus 'low-scoring, controlled night' lean I anchored on given England's qualifying clean-sheet record. | Croatia's reputation for keeping games tight and the draw/upset risk, which made me hedge my stake and cap confidence even though England's attacking quality produced a comfortable 2-goal margin. | no, England on the moneyline was the correct and most defensible pick; in hindsight the over-2.5/both-teams-to-score markets some previews flagged would also have hit, but my core 1X2 bet won. | 0.82 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.56 | 0.2922 | 0.579818 | 0.56 | 1.699301 | 3.65 | 5.3 | 0.5599 | 0.2606 | 0.1795 | 22 | 0 | team_a_win | 35 | 24.475524 | true | true | false | 0.0001 |
claude | m23 | group | group | Ghana | Panama | 1 | 0 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.36 | 0.27 | 0.37 | team_b_win | 20 | There's a sharp split between markets and models: bet365 makes Ghana slight favorites (+100 / Panama +260), but Opta's supercomputer gives Panama 45.2% vs Ghana's 29.6%, and Panama is ranked 34th to Ghana's 73rd while arriving in far better form (undefeated qualifying, recent Gold Cup final and Nations League runner-up... | partially_correct | true | neither | I underweighted the sharp betting market's signal — it favored Ghana despite worse ranking/form, and that information (Ghana's individual attacking quality translating to goals) proved decisive. | I leaned too hard on the Opta supercomputer's Panama projection and the FIFA ranking/recent-form gap, treating the model-vs-market divergence as a value edge when the market was better informed. | yes — I'd defer more to the sharp market favorite and either pass or stake smaller, though I'd caution against over-updating since a single one-goal loss is weak evidence against a process that was +EV under my model. | 0.6 | 2 | team_b_win | false | 0.36 | 0.6194 | 1.021651 | 0.37 | 2.35 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 0.4012 | 0.3041 | 0.2946 | 23 | 0 | team_a_win | 20 | -20 | true | false | true | 0.0754 |
claude | m24 | group | group | Uzbekistan | Colombia | 1 | 3 | team_b_win | regulation | team_b | 0.13 | 0.21 | 0.66 | team_a_win | 15 | Colombia is the deserved heavy favorite — superior squad (Díaz, James, Suárez), CONMEBOL pedigree vs. World Cup debutants — and my 66% Colombia win estimate matches the de-vigged market (Opta 62%, Dimers 68%, Kalshi ~72% pre-vig). Colombia and the draw therefore offer no edge after the bookmaker margin. The only identi... | partially_correct | true | neither | Colombia's attacking quality (Díaz/James/Suárez) was decisive enough to overcome the altitude and shaky warm-up form I leaned on; a 3-1 confirms the class gap dominated the conditions. | The Azteca altitude 'leveler' and Colombia's slow friendlies — these were the basis for nudging Uzbekistan to 13% and a value bet, and they did not materially close the gap. | yes — I'd take no_bet, since my Uzbekistan edge rested on a ~13% vs ~11% gap that sat within my own estimation noise and on speculative leveling factors. | 0.8 | 2 | team_b_win | true | 0.66 | 0.1766 | 0.415515 | 0.66 | 8.5 | 4.5 | 1.4 | 0.1116 | 0.2108 | 0.6776 | 24 | 2 | team_b_win | 15 | -15 | true | false | true | 0.0184 |
claude | m25 | group | group | Mexico | Korea Republic | 1 | 0 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.47 | 0.28 | 0.25 | no_bet | 0 | Mexico are deserved narrow home favorites given their four-game winning run, a clean-sheet opener, a perfect World Cup H2H vs Korea, and a fervent Guadalajara crowd, though Montes is suspended and Quiñones is a doubt. Korea's attacking quality (Son, Lee Kang-in, Hwang In-beom) keeps it close, consistent with Opta's ~49... | correct | true | neither | I underweighted Mexico's defensive solidity without Montes—Álvarez dropping into the backline held a clean sheet, so the shutout was firmer than my 'open game' lean implied. | Korea's attacking threat and the 'both teams to score' narrative; I gave Son/Lee Kang-in/Hwang slightly too much credit given Korea failed to score. | no, the favorite winning a tight game by one goal is exactly the efficient-market scenario I modeled, and a single result doesn't reveal an edge I could have exploited. | 0.72 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.47 | 0.4218 | 0.755023 | 0.47 | 2.04 | 3.45 | 4.17 | 0.4807 | 0.2842 | 0.2351 | 25 | 0 | team_a_win | 0 | 0 | false | null | null | null |
claude | m26 | group | group | Canada | Qatar | 6 | 0 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.71 | 0.18 | 0.11 | no_bet | 0 | Canada are strong favourites at home in Vancouver (FIFA 30th vs 56th), with the Opta supercomputer giving them 72.9% and bookmakers pricing them around 2/7; Qatar were heavily outplayed by Switzerland and are winless in seven. My ~71% estimate for a Canada win sits below the ~78% break-even implied by 2/7, so backing t... | correct | true | neither | I underweighted Qatar's defensive fragility — they had already conceded 26 shots and 3.2 xG to Switzerland, so the gap was wide enough that a blowout, not just a win, was a real possibility; my 18% draw and 11% Qatar-win mass was likely too generous. | Canada's nervy, wasteful opener against Bosnia and Qatar's 'plucky frustrator' narrative from their lucky late draw — I treated Canada's finishing problems and Qatar's resilience as more durable than they were. | no — backing a ~2/7 favourite was still thin/negative EV by my own framework, and resisting outcome bias, the no-bet was process-sound; the real value, if any, sat in goals/handicap markets I didn't price. | 0.82 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.71 | 0.1286 | 0.34249 | 0.71 | 1.25974 | 5.75 | 9.75 | 0.7417 | 0.1625 | 0.0958 | 26 | 0 | team_a_win | 0 | 0 | false | null | null | null |
claude | m27 | group | group | Switzerland | Bosnia and Herzegovina | 4 | 1 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.58 | 0.27 | 0.15 | draw | 20 | Switzerland are deserved favorites (Opta 61.6%, Kalshi 61/24/16) given the deeper squad, settled spine and territorial dominance over Qatar, but they scored just once from ~26 shots and have one win in their last six, while Bosnia have drawn each of their last several competitive games (mostly 1-1) behind a disciplined... | partially_correct | true | neither | I underweighted the high likelihood of positive finishing regression for Switzerland — a side that takes 26 shots and 10 on target rarely stays wasteful two games running, and a clinical day was arguably the most predictable outcome on the card. | Bosnia's recent run of 1-1 draws — I treated a small-sample scoreline pattern as predictive and let it pull the draw above the market consensus, ignoring the clear quality gap over a full 90 minutes plus their defensive doubts (Kolasinac/Celik). | yes — I would have backed Switzerland or passed, since betting the draw actively contradicted my own forecast that a Swiss win was by far the most likely single outcome. | 0.8 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.58 | 0.2718 | 0.544727 | 0.58 | 1.57 | 4 | 5.8 | 0.6013 | 0.236 | 0.1628 | 27 | 0 | team_a_win | 20 | -20 | true | false | true | 0.034 |
claude | m28 | group | group | Czechia | South Africa | 1 | 1 | draw | regulation | null | 0.57 | 0.23 | 0.2 | team_a_win | 30 | Both teams lost their openers and treat this as must-win, but Czechia (ranked ~40th, 9 wins in last 13, no injuries, set-piece threat via Krejci/Schick/Coufal) holds a clear edge over a depleted South Africa that is winless in six, blunt in attack, and missing suspended midfielders Sithole and Zwane after a nine-man lo... | partially_correct | true | neither | I underweighted how a deep-sitting, depleted South Africa could neutralize Czechia's set-piece-reliant attack; given Czechia's poor open-play creation (which I noted but didn't price aggressively enough), the draw equilibrium deserved more than 23%. | South Africa's suspensions and poor form as a clean Czechia edge — losing two attacking midfielders likely made Bafana more compact and defensively solid in a low block, which suited a draw rather than handing Czechia control. | yes — at 0.57 vs a ~0.565 breakeven the true edge over the -130 line was negligible, so disciplined Kelly sizing meant a much smaller stake or no bet; this is a process correction, not result-chasing. | 0.7 | 0 | team_a_win | false | 0.23 | 0.9578 | 1.469676 | 0.57 | 1.8 | 3.7 | 4.5 | 0.5301 | 0.2579 | 0.212 | 28 | 0 | team_a_win | 30 | -30 | true | false | false | 0.0399 |
claude | m29 | group | group | USA | Australia | 2 | 0 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.6 | 0.22 | 0.18 | no_bet | 0 | USA are home co-hosts who dominated Paraguay 4-1 and sit as roughly -165 favorites (~60% de-vigged), while Australia's 2-0 win over Turkiye flattered a side that was outplayed (Turkey ~72% possession, 30-9 shots) and rescued by keeper Patrick Beach, who is likely to regress against a deeper US attack. My probabilities ... | correct | true | neither | I slightly underweighted how decisively the quality gap would show — USA controlled the game and Australia rarely threatened, so their opener win over Türkiye flattered them even more than I had already discounted. | The draw probability (0.22): I leaned on Australia's deep-defending, single-goal-margin, low-scoring profile to inflate the draw tail, but a comfortable 2-0 suggests the draw was less live than I priced. | no, the no_bet call was based on negative expected value at -165 given a ~0.60 estimate below the ~0.62 break-even, and switching because a favorite won would be outcome/resulting bias rather than a process improvement. | 0.8 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.6 | 0.2408 | 0.510826 | 0.6 | 1.625 | 4.2 | 5.2 | 0.5884 | 0.2277 | 0.1839 | 29 | 0 | team_a_win | 0 | 0 | false | null | null | null |
claude | m30 | group | group | Türkiye | Paraguay | 0 | 1 | team_b_win | regulation | team_b | 0.5 | 0.28 | 0.22 | team_a_win | 30 | Türkiye are favorites by both the market (~-105 ML, implied ~50%) and the Opta supercomputer (49.4% vs Paraguay's 23.7%); despite losing 2-0 to Australia they dominated (30 shots, 70% possession) and simply lacked finishing, and Kenan Yıldız returning to the starting XI should sharpen an attack facing a Paraguay side t... | incorrect | true | neither | Türkiye's finishing/conversion failure was a persistent structural weakness, not variance due to regress positively — two straight games of high shot volume and zero goals; relatedly, Paraguay's defensive solidity (their qualifying identity) was the real signal, not their 4-1 opener. | Türkiye's territorial dominance (possession and raw shot count) and the Kenan Yıldız return as predictors of goals, while treating Paraguay's heavy loss to the USA as proof of weakness rather than an outlier against a strong host. | yes — my own estimate had Türkiye at 0.50, below the ~0.512 breakeven implied by the -105 line, so there was no positive expected value and the coherent play was no_bet rather than letting a directional narrative override my own numbers. | 0.7 | 0 | team_a_win | false | 0.22 | 0.9368 | 1.514128 | 0.5 | 2.05 | 3.3 | 3.8 | 0.4628 | 0.2875 | 0.2497 | 30 | 0 | team_a_win | 30 | -30 | true | false | false | 0.0372 |
claude | m31 | group | group | Brazil | Haiti | 3 | 0 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.85 | 0.11 | 0.04 | draw | 15 | Brazil are overwhelming favorites (5-time champions, -800 market price; H2H wins of 7-1 and 6-0 vs Haiti, ranked 82nd) and the most likely winner by far, but the -800 line offers no betting value as it requires ~89% to break even, slightly above my 85% estimate. Brazil's shaky 1-1 opener vs Morocco (saved late by Aliss... | partially_correct | true | neither | How decisively a top side converts dominance into goals against a minnow when it needs points—a comfortable 3-0 implies the draw was even less live than my 11%. | Brazil's shaky 1-1 draw with Morocco and the 'ageing/frailties' narrative, which I treated as evidence the draw was viable when it was mostly a reflection of Morocco's quality, not Brazil's weakness vs weaker opposition. | yes—I would pass (no_bet) rather than stake on the draw, since the perceived +EV was within model error and the favorite-vs-minnow dynamic argued for a lower draw probability than I assigned. | 0.82 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.85 | 0.0362 | 0.162519 | 0.85 | 1.125 | 9.5 | 20 | 0.8513 | 0.1008 | 0.0479 | 31 | 0 | team_a_win | 15 | -15 | true | false | true | 0.0092 |
claude | m32 | group | group | Scotland | Morocco | 0 | 1 | team_b_win | regulation | team_b | 0.18 | 0.27 | 0.55 | no_bet | 0 | Morocco (Team B) are clear favorites: a top-10 side and 2022 semifinalists who matched Brazil in a 1-1 opener, while Scotland ground out a 1-0 win over Haiti but lack attacking quality against elite defenses. Multiple supercomputers (Opta 54.2%, others 54.8-58%) and the de-vigged market (Morocco ~56%, draw ~27%, Scotla... | correct | true | neither | none | none | no, the result confirmed Morocco as rightful favorites and a tight 1-0 was the modal scoreline I expected, so passing into an efficient market with no edge remains the disciplined call. | 0.82 | 2 | team_b_win | true | 0.55 | 0.3078 | 0.597837 | 0.55 | 5 | 3.6 | 1.727273 | 0.1893 | 0.2629 | 0.5479 | 32 | 2 | team_b_win | 0 | 0 | false | null | null | null |
claude | m33 | group | group | Tunisia | Japan | 0 | 4 | team_b_win | regulation | team_b | 0.14 | 0.24 | 0.62 | draw | 10 | Japan are clear and deserved favourites (Opta ~61% win, market ~8/15) after a resilient 2-2 draw with the Netherlands, while Tunisia are in crisis: heaviest-ever WC loss (5-1 to Sweden), a mid-tournament manager change to Renard, and one win in eight. But that favourite price offers no value, so I avoid backing Japan; ... | correct | true | neither | I underweighted how Tunisia's must-win approach—committing bodies forward—would leave them exposed to Japan's counters, making a decisive Japan win far more likely than the grinding draw I implied; a 4-0 rout shows the quality/morale gap was wider than my 62/24/14 split priced. | Japan's missing Kubo and their poor World Cup clean-sheet record, which I used to justify draw value—Japan's depth absorbed the absence and they kept a clean sheet anyway. | yes, I'd skip the draw—it carried only noise-level edge that my own Kelly check flagged, and the must-win dynamic actually argued for a decisive Japan win, so no_bet or a Japan line was the rational play. | 0.82 | 2 | team_b_win | true | 0.62 | 0.2216 | 0.478036 | 0.62 | 6.5 | 4 | 1.533333 | 0.1457 | 0.2367 | 0.6176 | 33 | 2 | team_b_win | 10 | -10 | true | false | true | 0.0033 |
claude | m34 | group | group | Ecuador | Curaçao | 0 | 0 | draw | regulation | null | 0.86 | 0.09 | 0.05 | no_bet | 0 | Ecuador are heavy favorites with a top-tier defense (Caicedo, Pacho, Hincapié; just 5 goals conceded in 18 qualifiers) against a Curaçao side that shipped 19 goals in its last 5 games including a 7-1 loss to Germany, so I estimate Ecuador ~86% to win. However, the moneyline is juiced to roughly -900/-1000 (≈90% implied... | incorrect | false | neither | I underweighted the draw despite explicitly naming the factors that produce one—Ecuador's chronically low-scoring style (Under in 12 of 14), their blank against Ivory Coast, and storm-affected scrappy conditions; 9% was too low for a defensively-minded favorite trying to break down a team that would sit deep. | I leaned too hard on Curaçao's 7-1 collapse and -19 goal swing as predictive, when that thrashing came from Curaçao chasing the game against Germany—against a passive, possession-heavy Ecuador with no urgency to open up early, the quality gap didn't translate into goals. | no—passing on the juiced ~-1000 favorite was the right discipline and the draw confirms it was overpriced; chasing the +1000 draw purely because it landed would be hindsight bias, though I should have calibrated the draw higher (~15%), which would have made it a genuine consideration. | 0.7 | 0 | team_a_win | false | 0.09 | 1.5702 | 2.407946 | 0.86 | 1.1 | 10 | 21 | 0.8603 | 0.0946 | 0.0451 | 34 | 0 | team_a_win | 0 | 0 | false | null | null | null |
claude | m35 | group | group | Germany | Côte d'Ivoire | 2 | 1 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.57 | 0.24 | 0.19 | draw | 10 | Germany are deserved favorites (~-180, 7-1 demolition of Curaçao, 10-match win streak), but the market price implies ~62% while Opta's supercomputer gives them only 44.4%, suggesting recency bias inflated their line. Côte d'Ivoire are a genuine side (recent friendly wins over France and South Korea, organized under Faé... | partially_correct | true | neither | That Germany's attacking depth lets them win comfortably without a clean sheet, so conceding to Côte d'Ivoire never threatened the result the way my draw thesis assumed. | Germany's seven-game clean-sheet drought and Opta's conservative 44.4%, which I read as a path to a draw rather than just a path to conceding while still winning. | yes, I would have passed (no_bet) since my draw edge was thin and rested on fading an efficient market on the strength of one conservative model plus a stat, which wasn't enough to justify acting. | 0.6 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.57 | 0.2786 | 0.562119 | 0.57 | 1.549451 | 4.7 | 5.5 | 0.6206 | 0.2046 | 0.1748 | 35 | 0 | team_a_win | 10 | -10 | true | false | true | 0.0354 |
claude | m36 | group | group | Netherlands | Sweden | 5 | 1 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.53 | 0.24 | 0.23 | no_bet | 0 | Netherlands have the deeper, more talented squad (De Jong, Gakpo, Depay, Van Dijk) and are full-strength bar Q. Timber, but their 2-2 vs Japan exposed real defensive frailty that Sweden's in-form Isak–Gyökeres strike pair can exploit, so I shade slightly toward Sweden/draw versus reputation. My de-vigged probabilities ... | correct | false | neither | Sweden were the side with the fragile defense; their 5-1 over a poor, manager-sacking Tunisia masked a backline that the Netherlands' deeper attack (Gakpo, Depay, Summerville) would dismantle. | Sweden's attacking 'momentum' and the Isak-Gyokeres threat against Dutch defensive frailty, which led me to wrongly shade probability toward Sweden/draw and away from the market favorite. | no, no_bet remained sound against a near-efficient line, and one lopsided result is too thin to justify lowering my betting threshold, though I would stop shading against the market favorite. | 0.7 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.53 | 0.3314 | 0.634878 | 0.53 | 1.727273 | 3.8 | 4.75 | 0.55 | 0.25 | 0.2 | 36 | 0 | team_a_win | 0 | 0 | false | null | null | null |
claude | m37 | group | group | New Zealand | Egypt | 1 | 3 | team_b_win | regulation | team_b | 0.18 | 0.23 | 0.59 | no_bet | 0 | Egypt (Team B) are clear favorites: Opta's supercomputer gives them 58.5% vs New Zealand's 18.5%, aligning with market prices (Egypt ~8/13, NZ ~9/2, draw ~10/3). Egypt's settled low-block defense (two goals conceded in six) and Salah/Marmoush attack outclass a leaky NZ side that has lost 9 of 12 and gone 12 games witho... | correct | true | neither | I underweighted the margin: New Zealand's documented defensive frailty (12 games without a clean sheet, leaky transitions) let Egypt win comfortably rather than narrowly, so I leaned too much toward a tight/low-scoring game. | The 'closer than the odds suggest' narrative around NZ's set-piece threat and belief after the Iran draw, which nudged my draw probability slightly high. | no, the no_bet call was correct on expected-value grounds since prices were fair, and a single confirming result does not retroactively create an edge. | 0.72 | 2 | team_b_win | true | 0.59 | 0.2534 | 0.527633 | 0.59 | 5.5 | 4 | 1.6 | 0.172 | 0.2366 | 0.5914 | 37 | 2 | team_b_win | 0 | 0 | false | null | null | null |
claude | m38 | group | group | Uruguay | Cabo Verde | 2 | 2 | draw | regulation | null | 0.65 | 0.22 | 0.13 | no_bet | 0 | Uruguay are clear favorites (ranked 17th vs 67th, more squad depth and firepower), and my estimate aligns closely with the Opta supercomputer (65.2% Uruguay / 21% draw / 13.8% Cabo Verde) and Kalshi market (67/23/11). Because my probabilities essentially match the efficient market and bookmaker prices (~1.45 / implied ... | partially_correct | true | neither | Cape Verde's attacking output and Uruguay's defensive fragility — I framed Cabo Verde as a deep-sitting block with 'goalscoring issues,' yet they scored twice, and I underweighted how the absences of Araujo/Gimenez plus the reported dressing-room tension could let Uruguay concede multiple goals. | Uruguay's reputation, ranking gap, and squad-depth advantage translating into control and a win, when their actual on-pitch dysfunction (poor finishing, missing defensive leaders) deserved more weight. | no, the no_bet call was vindicated since a Uruguay wager at ~1.45 would have lost and my draw estimate (22%) matched the market, so there was still no positive-edge bet to make. | 0.8 | 0 | team_a_win | false | 0.22 | 1.0478 | 1.514128 | 0.65 | 1.47619 | 4.1 | 7.5 | 0.6423 | 0.2313 | 0.1264 | 38 | 0 | team_a_win | 0 | 0 | false | null | null | null |
claude | m39 | group | group | Belgium | IR Iran | 0 | 0 | draw | regulation | null | 0.64 | 0.23 | 0.13 | draw | 10 | Belgium are clear favorites (Opta 67.5%, market devigged ~66%) given far superior quality, a 14-match unbeaten run, and Iran's poor record versus top-15 sides, so I sit slightly below market at 64% mainly because Jeremy Doku is out through illness and Belgium have a long World Cup scoring drought (no non-own-goal at a ... | partially_correct | true | neither | I underweighted how completely Iran's deep defensive block plus Belgium's chronic World Cup finishing problems could produce a blank rather than the narrow Belgium win I treated as the base case. | Belgium's attacking firepower and strong pre-tournament friendly form (20 goals in 5 games), which once again failed to translate to the World Cup stage. | no, the draw was the correct value pick and the modest stake was appropriate for a thin edge under genuine uncertainty; increasing it purely because it won would be outcome bias. | 0.7 | 0 | team_a_win | false | 0.23 | 1.0194 | 1.469676 | 0.64 | 1.434783 | 4.6 | 7.5 | 0.6652 | 0.2075 | 0.1273 | 39 | 0 | team_a_win | 10 | 36 | true | true | true | 0.0225 |
claude | m40 | group | group | Spain | Saudi Arabia | 4 | 0 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.87 | 0.09 | 0.04 | no_bet | 0 | Spain are overwhelming favorites: the Opta supercomputer gives them ~86.7% (draw 9%, Saudi 4.3%) and Kalshi traders price ~89/9/4, consistent with their 27-shot dominance vs Cape Verde and Yamal now starting against a Saudi side set up to sit deep. However, bet365 prices Spain at -1200 (~92% implied), shorter than my ~... | correct | true | neither | I slightly underweighted the magnitude of Spain's superiority—a 4-0 rout suggests their true win probability and especially their goal-scoring ceiling were a touch higher than my ~87%, as the 27-shot performance vs Cape Verde was finishing variance rather than a quality issue. | The 'trap game' / low-block upset risk—Saudi Arabia's draw with Uruguay and Cape Verde's frustration of Spain led me to keep a meaningful tail on draw/Saudi outcomes, but the block was comprehensively broken. | no, the 1X2 prices offered no edge before kickoff regardless of the eventual scoreline, and a -1200 Spain line was still negative-EV against my honest pre-match estimate. | 0.8 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.87 | 0.0266 | 0.139262 | 0.87 | 1.090909 | 12 | 21 | 0.875 | 0.0795 | 0.0455 | 40 | 0 | team_a_win | 0 | 0 | false | null | null | null |
claude | m41 | group | group | Jordan | Algeria | 1 | 2 | team_b_win | regulation | team_b | 0.18 | 0.24 | 0.58 | team_a_win | 5 | Algeria (team_b) has a clearly deeper, mostly European-based squad and strong pre-tournament form, and is a near-consensus ~58-62% favorite (Opta 60.1%, Kalshi 62%, bet365 ~60% no-vig), so the -140/-167 price on them and the ~24% draw offer no real edge against my line. My estimate (Jordan 0.18 / draw 0.24 / Algeria 0.... | partially_correct | true | neither | I underweighted that Algeria's flat, low-xG display was Argentina-specific and that their superior attackers would convert against Jordan's far weaker defense and shaky keeper; they scored twice, as their quality should have implied. | I gave too much weight to Algeria's 0.32-xG misfire against Argentina as evidence they'd struggle to break down a deep block, which pushed my line slightly below market and motivated the Jordan flier. | yes — I'd choose no_bet, because my probabilities essentially matched the market and the Jordan +500 edge was within estimation noise rather than a robust, stake-worthy advantage. | 0.7 | 2 | team_b_win | true | 0.58 | 0.2664 | 0.544727 | 0.58 | 5.5 | 4.1 | 1.571429 | 0.1712 | 0.2296 | 0.5992 | 41 | 2 | team_b_win | 5 | -5 | true | false | true | 0.0088 |
claude | m42 | group | group | Norway | Senegal | 3 | 2 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.45 | 0.27 | 0.28 | no_bet | 0 | Norway carry momentum from a 4-1 win over Iraq with Haaland on an 11-game scoring streak, but Senegal (Mane, Jackson, Sarr, Koulibaly) field a deeper, more talented squad and are in near-must-win mode after losing to France. My estimates (~45/27/28) sit almost exactly on the Opta supercomputer (45.0/25.4/29.6) and the ... | correct | true | neither | Goal volume — I fixated on the efficient 1X2 market and underweighted that both teams' attacking quality against shaky defenses made Over 2.5 and BTTS (both flagged as value and both hitting in this 3-2) the real edge. | The draw / 'cagey, low-to-medium scoring' framing — I assigned 27% to a stalemate, but the game was open and produced five goals rather than the tight contest I partly leaned toward. | no — the 1X2 no-bet was process-correct given no edge over the de-vigged market, and a single confirming result shouldn't override that discipline, though in hindsight the goals markets offered the value I passed on. | 0.7 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.45 | 0.4538 | 0.798508 | 0.45 | 2.27 | 3.7 | 3.22 | 0.4313 | 0.2646 | 0.3041 | 42 | 0 | team_a_win | 0 | 0 | false | null | null | null |
claude | m43 | group | group | France | Iraq | 3 | 0 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.89 | 0.08 | 0.03 | no_bet | 0 | France (FIFA #3) beat Senegal 3-1 in their opener with Mbappé scoring twice and need only a draw to qualify, while Iraq (#57) lost 4-1 to Norway; Opta's supercomputer gives France 88.5%, draw 8.5%, Iraq 3%, matching my estimate. The market prices France at roughly 1.08 decimal (~93% implied) and Iraq at ~30.0, so every... | correct | true | neither | none | none | no, because the favorite winning was already my central forecast and France's ~1.08 odds offered only ~$8 upside against $100 risk—negative EV that a single confirming result doesn't retroactively justify chasing. | 0.9 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.89 | 0.0194 | 0.116534 | 0.89 | 1.083333 | 11 | 26 | 0.8771 | 0.0864 | 0.0365 | 43 | 0 | team_a_win | 0 | 0 | false | null | null | null |
claude | m44 | group | group | Argentina | Austria | 2 | 0 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.64 | 0.22 | 0.14 | team_a_win | 40 | Argentina are the defending champions in excellent form (6+ straight wins, Messi hat-trick in a 3-0 opener vs Algeria) and are clearly higher quality than a well-organized but weaker Austria, with only minor rotation/injury noise (Montiel out, Molina in; core XI intact). Market odds and statistical models both cluster ... | correct | true | neither | I slightly underweighted how comfortably Argentina would control the match and keep a clean sheet; their backline neutralized Austria's threats (Sabitzer, Arnautovic, Alaba) more easily than my 14% Austria-win and 22% draw figures implied. | The draw risk — I framed a low-scoring stalemate against Rangnick's compact side as the 'main risk,' but Austria never looked like getting a result and the 2-0 scoreline reflects a routine favorite win, not a tight contest. | no — backing the clear favorite at a moderate stake was the correct process given the short odds and thin edge, and I shouldn't let one confirming result tempt me into outcome-biased overconfidence about staking more. | 0.8 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.64 | 0.1976 | 0.446287 | 0.64 | 1.416667 | 4.5 | 7.5 | 0.665 | 0.2094 | 0.1256 | 44 | 0 | team_a_win | 40 | 16.666667 | true | true | false | -0.025 |
claude | m45 | group | group | Colombia | Congo DR | 1 | 0 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.6 | 0.25 | 0.15 | draw | 25 | Colombia are deservedly clear favorites (better squad with Díaz/James/Suárez, in-form, conditions suit a South American side), but the de-vigged market and Opta both price them around 58-64% to win, and the best available win odds (~1.50-1.56) offer no value. The edge sits with the draw: DR Congo's disciplined block al... | partially_correct | true | neither | I underweighted Colombia's ability to convert their clear quality and territorial edge into at least one goal against a deep block — a controlled 1-0/2-0 win was the true modal path, exactly as several previews flagged. | DR Congo's draw-securing ability — I leaned too heavily on the single Portugal data point to push the draw above the market's ~22%, when Colombia were more proactive and had the finishers to break the deadlock. | no — the short-priced favorite still offered no value and a thin-edge draw was a defensible position, though the marginal edge argues for a smaller stake or no_bet rather than a different pick. | 0.7 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.6 | 0.245 | 0.510826 | 0.6 | 1.512821 | 4.2 | 7 | 0.6344 | 0.2285 | 0.1371 | 45 | 0 | team_a_win | 25 | -25 | true | false | true | 0.0215 |
claude | m46 | group | group | Panama | Croatia | 0 | 1 | team_b_win | regulation | team_b | 0.15 | 0.24 | 0.61 | no_bet | 0 | Croatia (FIFA #11) are clear favorites over Panama (#34): the Opta supercomputer gives Croatia ~62% across 25,000 sims, and de-vigged market odds (Panama +550 / Draw +310 / Croatia -185) imply almost identical numbers (~62/23/15), so my estimate tracks the consensus closely. Panama impressed in a 1-0 opening loss to Gh... | correct | true | neither | I slightly underweighted how decisive Panama's chronic finishing problem would be—held scoreless again, exactly the failing I noted but didn't fully price into a higher draw chance. | Croatia's defensive frailty—I leaned on their 7-game clean-sheet drought to keep draw/upset live, but they ground out a 1-0 shutout, so that frailty didn't materialize. | no, the modal outcome landed and the market was efficient, so passing on a sub-1% Kelly edge remains the correct disciplined call regardless of this single result. | 0.72 | 2 | team_b_win | true | 0.61 | 0.2322 | 0.494296 | 0.61 | 7 | 4 | 1.5 | 0.1348 | 0.236 | 0.6292 | 46 | 2 | team_b_win | 0 | 0 | false | null | null | null |
claude | m47 | group | group | England | Ghana | 0 | 0 | draw | regulation | null | 0.79 | 0.14 | 0.07 | no_bet | 0 | My England-win estimate (~79%) sits right on top of the de-vigged market and supercomputer consensus (Opta 78.8%, prediction markets ~80.5%, bookmaker line England -450 / draw +550 / Ghana +1400), so there is no exploitable edge. England's moneyline at -450 is negative-EV (risk $100 to win ~$22), the draw is negative-E... | partially_correct | true | neither | Ghana's defensive floor — a Queiroz side set up to park the bus, fresh off a clean sheet, raised the probability of a low-scoring stalemate more than I credited; the goalless draw was a coherent script I assigned too little weight (14%). | England's attacking output, anchored on the 4-2 vs Croatia and the supercomputer/market favorite framing — recency bias toward their firepower, underplaying how wasteful favorites often are against a packed deep block, especially with qualification near-secured and possible rotation/complacency. | no — the no_bet call was correct on EV grounds and is actually vindicated, since the England moneyline (-450) I judged negative-EV would have lost outright on this draw. | 0.7 | 0 | team_a_win | false | 0.14 | 1.3686 | 1.966113 | 0.79 | 1.222222 | 6.5 | 15 | 0.7877 | 0.1481 | 0.0642 | 47 | 0 | team_a_win | 0 | 0 | false | null | null | null |
claude | m48 | group | group | Portugal | Uzbekistan | 5 | 0 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.79 | 0.14 | 0.07 | no_bet | 0 | My estimate (Portugal ~79% / draw ~14% / Uzbekistan ~7%) aligns with both the Opta/SportsCasting supercomputers (76-78% Portugal) and de-vigged market odds (Portugal -450 to -550, draw +600/+625, Uzbekistan +1400), reflecting Portugal's huge squad-quality edge, Rúben Dias's return, and a must-improve motivation against... | correct | true | neither | I underweighted the blowout potential — the sheer gap in squad quality meant Portugal were always likely to win the goal-difference battle emphatically once they corrected their MD1 sloppiness, not just edge a tight game. | Portugal's flat, low-xG opener against DR Congo and Ronaldo's poor form, which I treated as a signal they might struggle to break down a deep block when it was largely noise from a single game. | no — the moneyline still offered no value ex ante and a single emphatic result doesn't retroactively make a -450 price +EV; the real (unrewarded) edge was in the margin/over-goals markets, which I correctly avoided chasing on the match-result line. | 0.8 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.79 | 0.0686 | 0.235722 | 0.79 | 1.2 | 7 | 12 | 0.7865 | 0.1348 | 0.0787 | 48 | 0 | team_a_win | 0 | 0 | false | null | null | null |
claude | m49 | group | group | South Africa | Korea Republic | 1 | 0 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.17 | 0.24 | 0.59 | team_b_win | 25 | Sharp markets and the margin-free Kalshi price converge on Korea Republic ~59%, draw ~25%, South Africa ~17%, reflecting a clear quality gap (Son Heung-min, Kim Min-jae, Lee Kang-in), better form, and Korea needing only a result, while South Africa are winless in seven, have scored once in two games, and are missing su... | incorrect | true | unlucky | Motivational asymmetry cutting the other way: a team needing only a draw can turn passive and protective, and Korea had shown late-game fatigue (faded vs Mexico), which let a desperate, physical South Africa control a low-event match and nick it. | The individual quality gap (Son, Kim Min-jae, Lee Kang-in) and the 'South Africa over-commits, Korea counters' narrative — star quality often fails to convert in a single low-scoring game, especially when the favorite is managing for a draw. | yes — my own Kelly math showed the edge was essentially zero (~$1), so the disciplined call was no_bet rather than a $25 stake, a process critique independent of the loss. | 0.7 | 2 | team_b_win | false | 0.17 | 1.0946 | 1.771957 | 0.59 | 5.75 | 3.9 | 1.6 | 0.1648 | 0.243 | 0.5922 | 49 | 2 | team_b_win | 25 | -25 | true | false | false | -0.0022 |
claude | m50 | group | group | Czechia | Mexico | 0 | 3 | team_b_win | regulation | team_b | 0.27 | 0.29 | 0.44 | draw | 30 | Mexico have already clinched Group A top spot with two clean-sheet wins and are set to heavily rotate (Ochoa, Mora, Giménez in, Jiménez/Álvarez rested), removing both their urgency and some quality, while Czechia must win but have been toothless (<0.5 open-play xG/game, Schick starved of service). That points to a tigh... | partially_correct | false | neither | That a desperate Czechia chasing the game would open itself up to Mexico's counters and quality—the decisive 3-0 shows the talent/home gap was wider than my near-coin-flip probabilities implied, even for a rotated Mexico. | The 'rotation + low-scoring tight draw' narrative and Mexico's supposed lack of motivation, which I leaned on too heavily after seeing several experts flag draw value. | yes—I would have passed (no_bet) or considered backing Mexico rather than chasing a thin, narrative-driven edge on the draw. | 0.7 | 2 | team_b_win | true | 0.44 | 0.4706 | 0.820981 | 0.44 | 3.6 | 4 | 1.909091 | 0.2642 | 0.2377 | 0.4981 | 50 | 2 | team_b_win | 30 | -30 | true | false | true | 0.0523 |
claude | m51 | group | group | Morocco | Haiti | 4 | 2 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.82 | 0.12 | 0.06 | team_a_win | 25 | Morocco (4 pts, conceded once in two games, 31-match unbeaten run, settled XI) face an already-eliminated Haiti side that has scored zero goals and lost both matches; Opta's supercomputer gives Morocco ~81% and the market prices them around -455 (~82%). Morocco are also motivated to chase top spot and goal difference, ... | correct | true | neither | Haiti's attacking output when playing open with nothing to lose — they scored twice after being shut out in their first two games, which I underweighted by anchoring on their zero-goal record. | Morocco's defensive solidity ('conceded just once in two games') — I implicitly expected another clean sheet, but they conceded twice. | no — the Morocco win pick was correct and the most likely outcome, though I'd have valued a goals/over market more given how open the game became. | 0.82 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.82 | 0.0504 | 0.198451 | 0.82 | 1.166667 | 7.5 | 15 | 0.8108 | 0.1261 | 0.0631 | 51 | 0 | team_a_win | 25 | 4.166667 | true | true | false | 0.0092 |
claude | m52 | group | group | Scotland | Brazil | 0 | 3 | team_b_win | regulation | team_b | 0.12 | 0.22 | 0.66 | draw | 20 | Brazil are heavy favorites (Opta supercomputer 68%, Kalshi 72%, bet365 ~70% devigged) given their loaded attack and unbeaten 11-game head-to-head record over Scotland, even with Raphinha injured. However, Brazil only need a draw to top Group C, dampening their incentive to chase a win, while Scotland's defense has conc... | partially_correct | true | neither | Brazil's quality differential was large enough that their reduced need to win (only a draw required to top the group) did not blunt their performance — the talent gap dominated motivation. | The 'Brazil unmotivated, low-event game' narrative, which I used to inflate the draw probability to 22% and justify the bet. | yes — I'd choose no_bet (or back Brazil), since my thin draw edge rested on a motivation thesis the comfortable win refutes, and the efficient ~70% favorite read deserved more respect. | 0.7 | 2 | team_b_win | true | 0.66 | 0.1784 | 0.415515 | 0.66 | 8 | 5 | 1.363636 | 0.1181 | 0.189 | 0.6929 | 52 | 2 | team_b_win | 20 | -20 | true | false | true | 0.031 |
claude | m53 | group | group | Bosnia and Herzegovina | Qatar | 3 | 1 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.6 | 0.23 | 0.17 | team_b_win | 10 | Bosnia is the clearly stronger side (Dzeko, Kolasinac, superior squad) and the rightful favorite, while Qatar has been the tournament's worst team — 2-14 aggregate, never won a World Cup match, and just lost 6-0 to Canada. However, the market's ~+600 on Qatar (≈14% implied) looks slightly inflated by recency overreacti... | correct | true | neither | I underweighted that Qatar's 6-0 loss to Canada was a genuine signal of persistent weakness, not a recency-biased overreaction — the market's long price on them was warranted, and Bosnia's quality edge was real, as the 3-1 margin showed. | The 'market overreaction / contrarian value' thesis, anchored on Qatar's single flattering 1-1 draw with Switzerland, which I used to justify nudging Qatar from 14% to 17% and taking the bet. | yes — I'd either no-bet or back Bosnia, since my contrarian Qatar edge was illusory and the favorite's superiority was correctly priced by the market. | 0.72 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.6 | 0.2418 | 0.510826 | 0.6 | 1.444444 | 5 | 6.25 | 0.6579 | 0.1901 | 0.152 | 53 | 0 | team_a_win | 10 | -10 | true | false | true | 0.018 |
claude | m54 | group | group | Switzerland | Canada | 2 | 1 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.39 | 0.32 | 0.29 | draw | 25 | Switzerland (Team A) is the deserved market favorite (~+130/+150) as the seeded, deeper, in-form side, while Canada (Team B) carries home-crowd energy at BC Place but is hurt by injuries to Davies (likely benched) and Koné. The key edge is the incentive structure: both teams are essentially already through and Canada t... | partially_correct | true | neither | I underweighted that Switzerland's genuine quality/depth edge plus Canada's key injuries (Davies likely benched, Koné out) would more likely yield a decisive result for the better side rather than the cagey stalemate I leaned toward. | The 'Canada only needs a draw, both already qualified' incentive narrative—I bumped the draw above market on this, but Switzerland needed the win, pushed, and both sides actually wanted top spot for the easier knockout path. | yes—the modal call (Switzerland favorite) was right, but my $25 draw stake far exceeded what such a thin, narrative-dependent edge justified (near-zero full-Kelly), so I'd pass or stake a fraction of that. | 0.6 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.39 | 0.5586 | 0.941609 | 0.39 | 2.3 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 0.414 | 0.2975 | 0.2885 | 54 | 0 | team_a_win | 25 | -25 | true | false | true | 0.0225 |
claude | m55 | group | group | Curaçao | Côte d'Ivoire | 0 | 2 | team_b_win | regulation | team_b | 0.07 | 0.12 | 0.81 | team_b_win | 25 | Côte d'Ivoire (FIFA ~33rd, 2023 AFCON winners) are markedly stronger than debutants Curaçao (~82nd) and need only a draw to reach the last 32, while Curaçao must chase the game and will leave space for Ivorian counters; Opta's supercomputer gives Côte d'Ivoire 82.2% and Kalshi prices them at 84%, with the draw ~11% and... | correct | true | neither | Côte d'Ivoire's defensive control was more complete than I implied — I leaned toward goals at both ends, but Curaçao's counter threat (Hansen, Chong) never materialized into a goal against a back line that conceded nothing in CAF qualifying. | Curaçao's resilience and the 'nothing to lose, throw bodies forward could create chances' narrative, plus a slightly inflated draw probability premised on Côte d'Ivoire game-managing for the point they only needed. | no, the pick and reasoning were sound and the modest odds-on stake was appropriately disciplined; a 2-0 hindsight margin doesn't justify having risked more on a short price. | 0.7 | 2 | team_b_win | true | 0.81 | 0.0554 | 0.210721 | 0.81 | 18 | 8 | 1.142857 | 0.0526 | 0.1184 | 0.8289 | 55 | 2 | team_b_win | 25 | 3.571429 | true | true | false | -0.0189 |
claude | m56 | group | group | Ecuador | Germany | 2 | 1 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.27 | 0.24 | 0.49 | no_bet | 0 | My estimate (Ecuador 27% / draw 24% / Germany 49%) tracks both the Opta supercomputer (Germany 48.8%, Ecuador 28.2%) and the margin-adjusted bet365 prices (Germany 19-20, draw 3-1, Ecuador 5-2), so the line looks efficient with no positive-EV edge. Germany top the group and will rotate heavily under nothing-to-play-for... | partially_correct | true | neither | I underweighted how a fully-rotated, dead-rubber Germany XI could be genuinely vulnerable, and that Ecuador's high chance volume (16 shots on target, 27 attempts vs Curacao) meant their goal drought was variance-driven and likely to break against a weakened defense. | Ecuador's two-game scoring drought and 'can't finish' narrative, which I treated as a persistent skill deficit rather than bad finishing luck on top of strong chance creation. | no, because a single 27%-probability result doesn't invalidate the efficient-market reasoning behind no_bet, though I acknowledge Ecuador at 5-2 was the defensible value side I came closest to backing. | 0.68 | 2 | team_b_win | false | 0.27 | 0.8306 | 1.309333 | 0.49 | 3.5 | 4 | 1.95 | 0.2725 | 0.2384 | 0.4891 | 56 | 2 | team_b_win | 0 | 0 | false | null | null | null |
claude | m57 | group | group | Japan | Sweden | 1 | 1 | draw | regulation | null | 0.52 | 0.27 | 0.21 | team_a_win | 20 | Japan are unbeaten in Group F (2-2 vs Netherlands, 4-0 vs Tunisia), have conceded only twice, ride a nine-match unbeaten run, and hold a situational edge since a draw alone sends them through while Sweden must chase the game and open up against Japan's counter. Sweden carry real threat in Isak and Gyökeres but shipped ... | partially_correct | true | neither | I underweighted how Japan's own incentive structure suppressed their win probability—needing only a draw to advance, they had every reason to sit deep and settle, which actively pushes the modal outcome toward a draw rather than a Japan win. | Japan's attacking form, especially the 4-0 over an already-eliminated, out-of-sorts Tunisia, which flattered them and led me to back an outright win rather than respect the high draw likelihood. | yes—I flagged the Japan-win edge as marginal myself, so given Japan's clear incentive to settle for a draw, no_bet (or a draw/double-chance position) would have been the disciplined call. | 0.72 | 0 | team_a_win | false | 0.27 | 0.8474 | 1.309333 | 0.52 | 2 | 3.3 | 3.9 | 0.4719 | 0.286 | 0.242 | 57 | 0 | team_a_win | 20 | -20 | true | false | false | 0.0481 |
claude | m58 | group | group | Tunisia | Netherlands | 1 | 3 | team_b_win | regulation | team_b | 0.07 | 0.13 | 0.8 | draw | 10 | Both the Opta supercomputer (~83% NED win, ~5% TUN) and the market (NED -750, draw +800, TUN +1900) agree the Netherlands are overwhelming favorites against an eliminated, crisis-hit Tunisia that managed 0.05 xG and no shots on target last match. There's no value backing the Netherlands at -750 (implied ~88% vs my ~80%... | correct | true | neither | The Netherlands' squad depth means rotation barely dents their attacking output, so the 'rotated/dead-rubber side concedes a draw' dynamic I leaned on was largely illusory against a team this strong. | The dead-rubber/rotation effect as a driver of a draw, which was the entire basis for my draw stake. | yes, I'd choose no_bet—the favorite offered negative value at -750 and my draw 'edge' was too thin and speculative to justify staking. | 0.8 | 2 | team_b_win | true | 0.8 | 0.0618 | 0.223144 | 0.8 | 25 | 11.11 | 1.136426 | 0.0396 | 0.0891 | 0.8713 | 58 | 2 | team_b_win | 10 | -10 | true | false | true | 0.0409 |
claude | m59 | group | group | Türkiye | USA | 3 | 2 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.3 | 0.29 | 0.41 | team_a_win | 15 | USA has already won Group D and clinched the round of 32, so Pochettino is likely to rotate and protect four yellow-card-carrying starters (Adams, Balogun, Richards, Robinson) plus manage Pulisic's calf, weakening a side Opta's full-strength model rates at 47.7% win probability. Türkiye are eliminated but motivated and... | partially_correct | true | neither | Türkiye's attacking talent (Güler, Yıldız, Çalhanoğlu, Aktürkoğlu) finally converting and the freedom of a pressure-free, eliminated team unlocking their finishing—I over-anchored on their prior goal drought and 66 shots without a goal as if it were predictive. | I kept USA as the favorite at 0.41 despite my own qualitative reasoning pointing toward Türkiye being underrated; I anchored too heavily on the Opta/market consensus instead of fully committing my distribution to my own rotation/dead-rubber thesis. | no—the Türkiye pick was correct and profitable, and if anything I should have shaded both my probability and stake further toward Türkiye rather than keeping USA as nominal favorite. | 0.6 | 2 | team_b_win | false | 0.3 | 0.7422 | 1.203973 | 0.41 | 3.9 | 4.2 | 1.8 | 0.2442 | 0.2267 | 0.5291 | 59 | 2 | team_b_win | 15 | 43.5 | true | true | true | 0.0558 |
claude | m60 | group | group | Paraguay | Australia | 0 | 0 | draw | regulation | null | 0.4 | 0.35 | 0.25 | team_a_win | 20 | Both sides have 3 points, but Australia advances on a draw (GD +0 vs Paraguay -2), so the Socceroos are likely to sit deep while must-win Paraguay pushes forward — a dynamic that tends to produce either a Paraguay breakthrough or a cagey draw, suppressing Australia's win chance. Opta's supercomputer marginally favors P... | partially_correct | true | neither | I underweighted how decisively Australia's draw-is-enough incentive would let them kill the game from a low block, compounded by Almirón's suspension blunting Paraguay's only realistic route to breaking it down — the 0-0 deserved closer to 40% than the 35% I gave it. | The 'must-win team eventually breaks through' logic — I gave Paraguay's win (0.40) too much credit for converting territorial pressure into a goal against an organized, motivated-to-defend opponent. | no — a +EV wager on a 40% pick is expected to lose ~60% of the time, so a single 0-0 doesn't invalidate the process, though I'd trim the stake slightly given how thin the edge over the draw really was. | 0.7 | 0 | team_a_win | false | 0.35 | 0.645 | 1.049822 | 0.4 | 2.875 | 2.15 | 3.9 | 0.3253 | 0.435 | 0.2398 | 60 | 1 | draw | 20 | -20 | true | false | true | 0.0747 |
claude | m61 | group | group | New Zealand | Belgium | 1 | 5 | team_b_win | regulation | team_b | 0.08 | 0.14 | 0.78 | team_b_win | 15 | Belgium are heavy favorites in this must-win Group G decider: the Opta supercomputer gives them ~80.3% (draw 11.8%, NZ 7.9%), and they enter unbeaten in 15, with a vast squad-quality and ranking gap (NZ ~85th, winless in 8 World Cup matches). Market odds (Belgium ~-360 ≈ 78% implied) sit just below the model estimate, ... | correct | true | neither | I underweighted how decisively Belgium's latent attacking quality could break out once they finally converted chances—the 5-goal haul exceeded the 'muted, profligate Belgium' picture I leaned on. | Belgium's tournament goal drought and poor finishing, which led me to inflate the draw probability (0.14) and stake conservatively rather than backing a more emphatic Belgium outcome. | no, the moneyline Belgium pick was vindicated and the process was sound—though with hindsight a -1.5 handicap or over-goals line would have returned more given the blowout. | 0.82 | 2 | team_b_win | true | 0.78 | 0.0744 | 0.248461 | 0.78 | 14 | 8 | 1.179856 | 0.0684 | 0.1197 | 0.8118 | 61 | 2 | team_b_win | 15 | 2.697842 | true | true | false | -0.0318 |
claude | m62 | group | group | Egypt | IR Iran | 1 | 1 | draw | regulation | null | 0.39 | 0.37 | 0.24 | draw | 25 | Market consensus (Kalshi ~39/36/25, bookmakers Egypt +145, draw +175, Iran +280) and the Opta supercomputer make Egypt a slight favorite, but the incentive structure favors a draw: Egypt qualifies and likely tops the group with just a point, while a draw plus likely third-place math also nearly secures Iran, and Iran's... | correct | true | neither | I leaned on Iran's clean-sheet record and slightly underweighted that the game would open up enough for both teams to score (BTTS), which several sources had flagged; Iran scoring fit my 'they must push and can punish on the break' logic better than my defensive-solidity emphasis did. | Iran's defensive solidity / two near-clean-sheet record—they conceded, so my emphasis on their rearguard was marginally too strong, though it didn't affect the draw call. | no, the incentive structure correctly pointed to a draw and a modest stake was the right size for a genuinely thin edge—I'd avoid letting a winning result tempt me into thinking I should have staked more. | 0.8 | 0 | team_a_win | false | 0.37 | 0.6066 | 0.994252 | 0.39 | 2.45 | 2.75 | 3.3 | 0.3797 | 0.3383 | 0.2819 | 62 | 0 | team_a_win | 25 | 43.75 | true | true | true | 0.0317 |
claude | m63 | group | group | Cabo Verde | Saudi Arabia | 0 | 0 | draw | regulation | null | 0.41 | 0.27 | 0.32 | team_a_win | 15 | Cabo Verde have been the more cohesive side (0-0 vs Spain, 2-2 vs Uruguay), are defensively organized and carry genuine pace to exploit Saudi Arabia on the break, while the Saudis have looked toothless (only ~10 shots across two games, -4 GD, lacking width and creativity). Both teams essentially must win, suppressing t... | incorrect | false | neither | I underweighted the draw: I saw clear stalemate signals (both sides defensively organized, Saudi Arabia chronically toothless in attack, multiple 'controlled/low-scoring/under 2.5' reads) and the real chance Cape Verde would be content to sit deep for a point, yet still rated the draw lowest at 0.27. | The 'both teams must win, so the game opens up and favors Cape Verde's counter-attacking pace' dynamic—I assumed desperation would break the deadlock, but two cagey, defensively-minded sides simply cancelled each other out. | yes—my edge on a Cape Verde win was thin and the low-scoring/stalemate signals were strong, so no_bet or a draw/under-leaning position was the more disciplined call than backing the win. | 0.7 | 0 | team_a_win | false | 0.27 | 0.8034 | 1.309333 | 0.41 | 2.45 | 3.5 | 2.75 | 0.386 | 0.2702 | 0.3439 | 63 | 0 | team_a_win | 15 | -15 | true | false | false | 0.024 |
claude | m64 | group | group | Uruguay | Spain | 0 | 1 | team_b_win | regulation | team_b | 0.14 | 0.26 | 0.6 | draw | 25 | Spain (Team B) are clear favorites: top of Group H with 4 points, two clean sheets, in-form Oyarzabal and Yamal, and unbeaten in all 10 prior meetings with Uruguay (5W-5D). However, at roughly -200 the favorite offers no betting value, while the draw looks mildly underpriced near 23% market-implied: Spain need only a d... | correct | true | neither | Uruguay's depleted, blunt attack (no Araujo or De Arrascaeta, winless in five) made them unlikely to score the goal a draw required, so the draw was less reachable than I priced. | The 'Spain only needs a draw so will sit back' narrative plus the historical draw pattern, which inflated my draw probability and drove a marginal bet. | yes, I'd take no_bet—the draw edge was too thin to justify staking against a clearly superior side that only needed to avoid defeat, and the favorite was correctly priced too short to back. | 0.6 | 2 | team_b_win | true | 0.6 | 0.2472 | 0.510826 | 0.6 | 7 | 4.1 | 1.5 | 0.1356 | 0.2315 | 0.6329 | 64 | 2 | team_b_win | 25 | -25 | true | false | true | 0.0285 |
claude | m65 | group | group | Senegal | Iraq | 5 | 0 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.76 | 0.16 | 0.08 | team_a_win | 15 | Senegal hold a large quality gap (Mané, Ismaïla Sarr, Jackson) and are desperate for a convincing win to chase a best-third-place spot, while an eliminated Iraq has lost all five of its World Cup matches ever, conceded 7 goals in 2 games, and likely misses top scorer Aymen Hussein; the Opta supercomputer puts Senegal a... | correct | true | neither | I underweighted the sheer magnitude of the gap — Iraq's total attacking impotence (only one tournament goal, top scorer Hussein out, already eliminated) meant Senegal could romp to a clean-sheet rout rather than the competitive multi-goal win I pictured. | Senegal's defensive frailty/BTTS risk — I inflated the draw (0.16) and Iraq (0.08) lines expecting a consolation goal, but a non-threatening Iraq never tested that weakness. | no — the directional call (Senegal) was right and a small stake at a short -375 price was the disciplined choice, though hindsight shows the outcome was even safer than the market implied. | 0.82 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.76 | 0.0896 | 0.274437 | 0.76 | 1.222222 | 6.5 | 12 | 0.7753 | 0.1458 | 0.079 | 65 | 0 | team_a_win | 15 | 3.333333 | true | true | false | -0.0153 |
claude | m66 | group | group | Norway | France | 1 | 4 | team_b_win | regulation | team_b | 0.21 | 0.23 | 0.56 | draw | 20 | France are clear favorites (Opta ~55%, market ~-160) with a deeper squad, better form and a sturdier defense, but both teams have already qualified and a draw is enough for France to top Group I, which combined with likely mutual rotation (Norway reportedly weighing resting Haaland/Ødegaard; France missing Deschamps an... | partially_correct | true | neither | France's individual incentives (Mbappé's Golden Boot race, the clean-sweep ambition, playing for their grieving absent coach) meant they had every reason to attack at full intensity, so the reduced collective stakes never translated into a downshift. | The 'both already qualified + France content with a draw + mutual rotation' dead-rubber dynamic, which I leaned on to inflate the draw probability above market—it didn't materialize at all. | yes — I would have chosen no_bet or backed France/over 2.5 instead of the draw, since the draw thesis depended on a low-intensity game that the favorite's incentives made unlikely. | 0.82 | 2 | team_b_win | true | 0.56 | 0.2906 | 0.579818 | 0.56 | 4.5 | 4.5 | 1.65 | 0.2115 | 0.2115 | 0.5769 | 66 | 2 | team_b_win | 20 | -20 | true | false | true | 0.0185 |
claude | m67 | group | group | Algeria | Austria | 3 | 3 | draw | regulation | null | 0.25 | 0.45 | 0.3 | draw | 30 | Both teams are level on 3 points and a draw sends Austria through as runner-up and very likely Algeria through as a best third-placed team, creating strong mutual incentive for a cautious game — sharpened by the quirk that finishing 2nd earns a brutal Spain matchup in the R32 while 3rd may draw Switzerland. The bet365 ... | correct | true | neither | Both defenses were far more porous than I assumed — I treated 'both content with a draw' as implying a low-event, low-scoring game, but a draw can equally emerge from an open, end-to-end shootout, which is what six goals reflect. | The 'mutual incentive for a cautious, low-risk game' narrative — I let the shared-incentive/avoid-Spain logic imply suppressed goals, when in fact both attacks (Mahrez/Gouiri, Sabitzer/Arnautovic) and shaky back lines produced a wide-open contest. | no — the draw was the correct modal call and the bet cashed, though I'd flag that my low-scoring rationale was wrong and the realized edge was thinner and more variance-driven than my reasoning implied. | 0.8 | 1 | draw | true | 0.45 | 0.455 | 0.798508 | 0.45 | 3.8 | 2.3 | 2.8 | 0.2494 | 0.4121 | 0.3385 | 67 | 1 | draw | 30 | 39 | true | true | false | 0.0379 |
claude | m68 | group | group | Jordan | Argentina | 1 | 3 | team_b_win | regulation | team_b | 0.07 | 0.14 | 0.79 | no_bet | 0 | This is a dead rubber: Argentina (Team B) have already won Group J and clinched the Round of 32, so Scaloni is expected to rotate heavily and rest/limit the 39-year-old Messi, while eliminated Jordan (Team A) play only for pride and a first-ever World Cup point. Even a B-team Argentina vastly outclasses a Jordan side r... | correct | true | neither | Slightly underweighted that a relaxed, rotated Argentina would still concede — Jordan got their goal against the reserves, so the clean-sheet streak I cited didn't hold, though this was minor and already partly priced in. | The dead-rubber/rotation and motivation-asymmetry narrative, which I used to shade Argentina below the market (0.79 vs ~0.83); the comfortable 3-1 suggests Argentina's depth dominated regardless and the market's higher number was the better estimate. | no — at ~1.20-1.23 there was no value against my probability, and one favorable result doesn't justify backing a sub-break-even favorite; the disciplined no_bet stands on process grounds. | 0.82 | 2 | team_b_win | true | 0.79 | 0.0686 | 0.235722 | 0.79 | 16.67 | 9.09 | 1.162866 | 0.0582 | 0.1068 | 0.8349 | 68 | 2 | team_b_win | 0 | 0 | false | null | null | null |
claude | m69 | group | group | Colombia | Portugal | 0 | 0 | draw | regulation | null | 0.25 | 0.29 | 0.46 | draw | 12 | Colombia (Team A) need only a draw to top Group K and are set up to defend compactly with strong local support in Miami, while Portugal (Team B) must chase the win and may rotate already-qualified legs. Opta's supercomputer (51.6% Portugal) and bet365 (Portugal -118) agree Portugal are clear favorites, so there's no va... | partially_correct | true | neither | I underweighted how strongly the mutual incentive structure pushed toward a genuinely low-event, scoreless game — a 0-0 specifically was more likely than my 0.29 draw figure (which still had Portugal as modal) implied, given both defenses were solid and both sides were content to advance. | Portugal's talent edge and 5-0 momentum: I anchored my 0.46 Portugal-win figure too heavily on Opta's 51.6% and bookmaker favoritism, which were talent-based and discounted the game-state dampener I had myself identified. | no — the draw was the correctly identified value play and it cashed at +260; if anything I'd have sized it marginally larger or paired it with a 0-0 correct-score angle, but the core decision was right. | 0.7 | 2 | team_b_win | false | 0.29 | 0.7782 | 1.237874 | 0.46 | 4.22 | 3.8 | 1.869565 | 0.229 | 0.2543 | 0.5168 | 69 | 2 | team_b_win | 12 | 33.6 | true | true | true | 0.0357 |
claude | m70 | group | group | Congo DR | Uzbekistan | 3 | 1 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.55 | 0.22 | 0.23 | no_bet | 0 | DR Congo are deserved favorites: defensively solid (only ~2 conceded against Portugal and Colombia) with more squad quality, while Uzbekistan have looked overwhelmed (8 conceded, ~1 scored) and would need an unrealistic blowout to have any third-place hope. Both sides effectively need to win to advance, which should op... | correct | true | neither | How decisively DR Congo's attack would convert against a leaky Uzbek defense (which had already shipped 8 goals / ~2.11 xG per game); I had this data but didn't let it lift my win probability or my goals expectation enough — a 3-1 was well outside my implied 'tight, low-scoring' read. | The 'both teams toothless / draw-prone / must-win makes it cagey' low-scoring narrative, which capped DR Congo at 55% and pushed me to no_bet when the defensive quality gap argued for ~58-60%. | yes — I'd nudge DR Congo to ~58-60%, which flips -135 from slightly negative to marginal positive EV and justifies a small win stake, though I'm wary of overcorrecting from a single result. | 0.7 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.55 | 0.3038 | 0.597837 | 0.55 | 1.740741 | 4.2 | 4.3 | 0.5497 | 0.2278 | 0.2225 | 70 | 0 | team_a_win | 0 | 0 | false | null | null | null |
claude | m71 | group | group | Croatia | Ghana | 2 | 1 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.52 | 0.29 | 0.19 | team_a_win | 30 | Croatia hold a large quality gap (Modric, Gvardiol, Kovacic; ranked ~65 places above Ghana), must win to control their fate, and Opta's supercomputer gives them a 56% win chance—all pointing to a Croatia victory as the most likely outcome. However, Ghana's deep, disciplined Queiroz block has two clean sheets and only n... | correct | true | neither | I slightly underweighted Ghana's ability to actually convert a chance—I leaned hard on their one-goal-in-two-games toothlessness, yet they still found the net, so the 2-1 wasn't the clean Croatia control I implied. | Ghana's defensive resilience and two-clean-sheet record, which pushed my draw probability up to 0.29; Croatia's quality broke that block for two goals, so the low-block narrative deserved less weight. | no, Croatia win was the correct directional read and a modest stake suited the thin edge, though the borderline -EV at -115 means a disciplined no_bet was also defensible. | 0.72 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.52 | 0.3506 | 0.653926 | 0.52 | 1.75188 | 3.18 | 5.2 | 0.5297 | 0.2918 | 0.1785 | 71 | 0 | team_a_win | 30 | 22.556391 | true | true | false | -0.0097 |
claude | m72 | group | group | Panama | England | 0 | 2 | team_b_win | regulation | team_b | 0.08 | 0.13 | 0.79 | no_bet | 0 | Panama are already eliminated, pointless and goalless, while England need only a draw to advance and have far superior depth; the Opta supercomputer (England 78.5%, Panama 8.9%) and Kalshi/bet365 markets (England ~85%, draw ~12%, Panama ~7%) all align closely with my estimate, so there's no exploitable edge. England at... | correct | true | neither | I slightly underweighted England's likelihood of a clean, comfortable win — a 2-0 with Panama kept goalless was the textbook expression of the quality gap, and an overdue clinical finish was more probable than my draw-inflated distribution implied. | The risk of a frustrating low-block draw — I anchored too much on the prior 0-0 vs Ghana and England's finishing woes, nudging the draw to 0.13 when a comfortable England win was the cleaner read. | no — with my probabilities matching market consensus and the -600 favorite being negative-EV, abstaining was correct ex ante regardless of the outcome, and hindsight that England won doesn't change that. | 0.82 | 2 | team_b_win | true | 0.79 | 0.0674 | 0.235722 | 0.79 | 13 | 8 | 1.166667 | 0.0726 | 0.118 | 0.8093 | 72 | 2 | team_b_win | 0 | 0 | false | null | null | null |
claude | m73 | knockout | round_of_32 | South Africa | Canada | 0 | 1 | team_b_win | regulation | team_b | 0.18 | 0.29 | 0.53 | draw | 20 | Canada are deserved favorites (market ~-140, implying ~55% no-vig) with Jonathan David in form and a possible Alphonso Davies return, versus a defensively stubborn but goal-shy South Africa that scored just twice in the group stage. My win/draw/win estimate is close to the market, but both sides are low-scoring (Under ... | partially_correct | true | neither | In a low-total match the superior side still tends to nick the one decisive goal, so a tight game favors the favorite winning by one as much as it favors a draw. | The draw probability, inflated by 'low-scoring therefore more draws' reasoning, when the quality gap pointed to a 1-0/2-0 Canada win that the analysts had flagged. | yes — my own note said the draw edge was within model noise, so no_bet was the more disciplined call regardless of outcome, since a ~1.5% estimated edge under high lineup uncertainty (Davies' status) wasn't robust enough to stake. | 0.7 | 2 | team_b_win | true | 0.53 | 0.3374 | 0.634878 | 0.53 | 5 | 3.55 | 1.77 | 0.1911 | 0.2691 | 0.5398 | 73 | 2 | team_b_win | 20 | -20 | true | false | true | 0.0209 |
claude | m74 | knockout | round_of_32 | Germany | Paraguay | 1 | 1 | draw | penalties | team_b | 0.68 | 0.22 | 0.1 | draw | 15 | Germany are rightly heavy favorites (~-290 / ~70% implied), with elite attackers (Wirtz, Musiala, Sané, Havertz), but the moneyline carries no value at that price and Paraguay at +850 is a true longshot. Paraguay are built as a deep, compact low block that has produced back-to-back clean sheets (Türkiye, Australia), an... | partially_correct | true | lucky | I underweighted how completely Paraguay's deep block could neutralize Germany's superior attack and drag the tie to extra time and a shootout, and I gave no explicit weight to the knockout penalty path where the 'draw' outcome means Paraguay actually advance. | The Germany talent/firepower gap — I had them at 68% to win in regulation, overrating the likelihood that an elite attack breaks down a purpose-built low block within 90 minutes against a side that had already kept two clean sheets. | No — the draw at +390 was the correct value identification given the stylistic mismatch, and it cashed; the only tweak would be also considering a 'Paraguay to advance' line to capture the shootout upside. | 0.7 | 0 | team_a_win | false | 0.22 | 1.0808 | 1.514128 | 0.68 | 1.38 | 5 | 8.5 | 0.6952 | 0.1919 | 0.1129 | 74 | 0 | team_a_win | 15 | 60 | true | true | true | 0.0281 |
claude | m75 | knockout | round_of_32 | Netherlands | Morocco | 1 | 1 | draw | penalties | team_b | 0.44 | 0.31 | 0.25 | draw | 20 | Models and de-vigged markets agree Netherlands are slight favorites (Opta 47.6/27.4/25.0; bet365 implied ~45/29/26; Kalshi 46/31/25), and my win-market numbers match closely enough that those bets carry no real edge. The draw at plus-money (~+230) is the only modest value angle: Morocco are unbeaten inside 90 minutes i... | partially_correct | true | neither | Morocco's knockout temperament and shootout strength — I had the Dutch favored to progress, but Morocco neutralized them in open play and went through on penalties, a scenario my own sources (RotoWire) flagged and I underweighted in the win probabilities. | The Netherlands' group-stage attacking output; 10 goals against weaker defenses didn't translate against Morocco's disciplined block, which held them to a single goal over 120 minutes. | no — the draw was the correct value angle given two organized sides and a likely level-after-90 game, and it landed; the process holds up independent of the shootout, though I'd note Morocco-to-progress was the under-respected side bet. | 0.82 | 0 | team_a_win | false | 0.31 | 0.7322 | 1.171183 | 0.44 | 2.15 | 3.3 | 3.6 | 0.4447 | 0.2897 | 0.2656 | 75 | 0 | team_a_win | 20 | 46 | true | true | true | 0.0203 |
claude | m76 | knockout | round_of_32 | Brazil | Japan | 2 | 1 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.55 | 0.27 | 0.18 | draw | 25 | Market lines (Brazil ~-145, Draw ~+270/+290, Japan ~+400/+420) de-vig to roughly Brazil 56% / Draw 25% / Japan 19%, and Brazil's class, form (back-to-back 3-0s) and attacking firepower (Vini Jr 4 goals, Cunha 3) make them deserved favorites. However, Brazil's big wins came against Haiti/Scotland (neither advanced), Rap... | partially_correct | true | neither | I underweighted that an open, high-event game (the tournament's Over-2.5 trend, both attacks scoring) makes a 90-minute draw less likely; a 2-1 with Japan scoring but losing is exactly the competitive-favorite-wins scenario my 55% Brazil line implied. | Japan's draw-prone containment style and the 2025 Kirin Cup friendly win as evidence the gap had narrowed enough to make the regulation draw a value play. | yes — the draw edge was only ~5% at the best price and within model error, so the disciplined call was no_bet or a smaller stake rather than chasing a thin contrarian value angle. | 0.6 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.55 | 0.3078 | 0.597837 | 0.55 | 1.74 | 3.8 | 4.9 | 0.5516 | 0.2526 | 0.1959 | 76 | 0 | team_a_win | 25 | -25 | true | false | true | 0.0174 |
claude | m77 | knockout | round_of_32 | Mexico | Ecuador | 2 | 0 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.44 | 0.3 | 0.26 | team_b_win | 10 | Mexico are deserved favorites as imperious hosts (9/9 points, three clean sheets) playing in Mexico City, and the no-vig market puts them around 43-45% with Ecuador near 24-25% (+290). However, Mexico's clean sheets came against modest attacks (South Africa, South Korea, Czechia), while Ecuador just came from behind to... | partially_correct | true | neither | Mexico's defensive control and squad cohesion were strong enough to produce a comfortable clean-sheet win, not the tense 1-0/extra-time grind I leaned toward; I underweighted how decisively the host could dominate. | The 'Ecuador beat Germany + altitude specialists' narrative — I inflated Ecuador's win probability above market (0.26) specifically to manufacture a value bet that wasn't really there. | yes — I'd go no_bet, since my true edge was within estimation noise and the efficient-market read was the correct one. | 0.72 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.44 | 0.4712 | 0.820981 | 0.44 | 2.25 | 2.8 | 4 | 0.4226 | 0.3396 | 0.2377 | 77 | 0 | team_a_win | 10 | -10 | true | false | true | 0.0223 |
claude | m78 | knockout | round_of_32 | France | Sweden | 3 | 0 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.74 | 0.16 | 0.1 | no_bet | 0 | France were perfect in Group I (10 goals scored, 2 conceded; 4-1 over Norway) with a deep, in-form attack and Saliba returning, while Sweden sneaked in as a best third-place team with a dangerous Gyökeres-Isak strike pair but a leaky defense missing Isak Hien — a clear France edge. My ~74% France estimate essentially m... | correct | true | neither | I underweighted France's defensive solidity (Saliba back, Upamecano in form) — I expected Sweden to likely score at least once, but France kept a clean sheet and fully neutralized Gyökeres and Isak. | Sweden's strike-pairing threat; I treated Gyökeres-Isak as likely to make the game open, but they never got the platform to hurt France. | no, one comfortable win doesn't retroactively create value at -330 — passing on a no-edge line was still the disciplined call regardless of the outcome. | 0.8 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.74 | 0.1032 | 0.301105 | 0.74 | 1.3 | 5.75 | 10 | 0.7374 | 0.1667 | 0.0959 | 78 | 0 | team_a_win | 0 | 0 | false | null | null | null |
claude | m79 | knockout | round_of_32 | Côte d'Ivoire | Norway | 1 | 2 | team_b_win | regulation | team_b | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0.46 | team_a_win | 15 | Analysts unanimously frame this as a near coin-flip between two sides separated by only a couple of FIFA ranking places, yet the market prices Norway clearly ahead (~1/1) largely on Haaland's four group-stage goals, leaving Côte d'Ivoire generously priced at ~11/4. The Elephants are well-organized, hard to break down, ... | partially_correct | true | neither | Norway's top-end quality (Haaland/Odegaard) as the decisive edge—I let the 'coin flip' narrative pull Côte d'Ivoire above the vig-removed market number when the market's Norway lean was probably right. | The pundit 'coin flip' framing plus CIV's friendly win over France, which I used to manufacture underdog value and justify betting against my own modal outcome. | yes—my own Kelly check showed the edge was essentially noise (~$0.45 full Kelly), so staking $15 on the underdog against my own most-likely outcome was undisciplined; no_bet was the correct call. | 0.7 | 2 | team_b_win | true | 0.46 | 0.4374 | 0.776529 | 0.46 | 3.65 | 3.5 | 2.05 | 0.2616 | 0.2728 | 0.4657 | 79 | 2 | team_b_win | 15 | -15 | true | false | true | 0.0084 |
claude | m80 | knockout | round_of_32 | USA | Bosnia and Herzegovina | 2 | 0 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.68 | 0.2 | 0.12 | team_b_win | 10 | USA are clear home favorites (FIFA #15 vs #61, in-form after winning Group D, rested starters like Adams/Balogun/Pulisic returning, home Bay Area crowd), so ~68% in regulation. Market prices USA at -280 (negative EV after vig) and Bosnia at +800; my ~12% estimate slightly exceeds the ~10.5% de-vigged market given singl... | correct | true | neither | I underweighted how decisively Bosnia's chronically leaky defense would let USA's strong, rested attack control the game, making a comfortable USA win more likely than my 12% Bosnia figure implied. | USA's 'four straight knockout losses' jinx and their defensive frailty—narrative factors I used to nudge Bosnia above the market's ~10.5%, none of which materialized. | yes—I would pick no_bet or a far smaller stake, since the Bosnia edge was razor-thin, narrative-driven, and my $10 stake was aggressive relative to what Kelly (~$1) justified. | 0.8 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.68 | 0.1568 | 0.385662 | 0.68 | 1.44 | 4.6 | 7.5 | 0.6644 | 0.208 | 0.1276 | 80 | 0 | team_a_win | 10 | -10 | true | false | true | -0.0076 |
claude | m81 | knockout | round_of_32 | Belgium | Senegal | 3 | 2 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.43 | 0.31 | 0.26 | draw | 20 | De-vigged consensus market odds (BEL ~+115, Draw ~+220, SEN ~+260) imply roughly 44/30/26, and this is widely framed as a coin-flip dressed up as a slight Belgium edge; Belgium looked toothless against organized defenses (1-1 Egypt, 0-0 Iran) before feasting on weak New Zealand, and Senegal will sit compact and counter... | partially_correct | true | neither | I underweighted that Belgium's superior attacking quality (De Bruyne/Lukaku/Trossard) would actually convert in an open, end-to-end game rather than the match staying tight and low-scoring. | The sharp-handicapper 'tense, low-scoring regulation draw' narrative and Belgium's toothlessness vs organized defenses—Senegal played open and countered rather than parking the bus, giving Belgium's attack the space it lacked vs Egypt/Iran. | yes—my own Kelly math already pointed to a near-zero stake, so no_bet or ~$5 would have been the internally consistent call rather than $20 on a 31% outcome. | 0.7 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.43 | 0.4886 | 0.84397 | 0.43 | 2.15 | 3.2 | 3.7 | 0.4439 | 0.2982 | 0.2579 | 81 | 0 | team_a_win | 20 | -20 | true | false | true | 0.0118 |
claude | m82 | knockout | round_of_32 | England | Congo DR | 2 | 1 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.74 | 0.19 | 0.07 | draw | 15 | Market (~-380) and Opta's supercomputer (73.9% England in regulation) both peg England near 74-76%, so backing the favorite offers no value after the vig. The one soft spot is the draw: England have repeatedly labored against deep low blocks (Ghana stalemate, grind vs Panama) and DR Congo are precisely that opponent—or... | partially_correct | true | neither | England's individual quality (Kane, Bellingham, Saka) still producing the decisive goals to break the block—the favorite converting despite the grind, rather than the game staying level. | The 'England struggle against low blocks, therefore elevated draw chance' narrative, which pushed me into a bet against a well-priced favorite on a razor-thin edge. | yes, I would have chosen no_bet since the de-vigged edge on the draw (~0.5-1%) was too thin to justify betting against a sharply priced favorite, even though my probability forecast itself was sound. | 0.8 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.74 | 0.1086 | 0.301105 | 0.74 | 1.27 | 5.75 | 13 | 0.7584 | 0.1675 | 0.0741 | 82 | 0 | team_a_win | 15 | -15 | true | false | true | 0.0225 |
claude | m83 | knockout | round_of_32 | Switzerland | Algeria | 2 | 0 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.53 | 0.27 | 0.2 | team_a_win | 35 | Switzerland won Group B unbeaten (7 goals scored, 3 conceded) on a 9-match unbeaten run with midfield control via Xhaka/Freuler and no major injuries, while Algeria backed into R32 as a third-place team having conceded 7 goals in 3 games, with key forward Amoura a major doubt and goalkeeper uncertainty (Zidane/Benbot).... | correct | true | neither | I gave Algeria too much credit for scoring (they'd scored in all 3 group games), but their injury-hit attack was fully shut out — Switzerland's defense was better than the 'conceded in every group game' narrative implied. | Knockout-tightening draw risk and Algeria's counter-attacking threat via Mahrez, which never materialized in what was a fairly controlled Swiss win. | no, the pick was right and the modest $35 stake was appropriate given a thin edge over an efficient market and real single-game variance. | 0.7 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.53 | 0.3338 | 0.634878 | 0.53 | 2.05 | 3.35 | 4 | 0.4707 | 0.288 | 0.2412 | 83 | 0 | team_a_win | 35 | 36.75 | true | true | false | 0.0593 |
claude | m84 | knockout | round_of_32 | Portugal | Croatia | 2 | 1 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.53 | 0.28 | 0.19 | draw | 10 | De-vigged market odds imply roughly Portugal 54% / draw 27% / Croatia 19%, and I broadly agree—Portugal have deeper, more talented attackers versus an aging Croatia side that shipped four to England. My only lean is that a regulation draw is marginally underpriced: Portugal were held to 0-0 by Colombia and 1-1 by DR Co... | partially_correct | true | neither | In a win-or-go-home knockout, Portugal's raw talent edge was more likely to assert itself than in low-stakes group games; I underweighted how knockout urgency plus Croatia's England-exposed defensive frailty would let Portugal's attack convert. | Portugal's 'frustration-prone' group form (0-0 with Colombia, 1-1 with DR Congo) as evidence they'd be held again, and Croatia's aging-core 'tempo control' as a draw driver. | yes—the draw edge rested on an overextended narrative and was within estimation noise, so no_bet was the more disciplined call. | 0.6 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.53 | 0.3354 | 0.634878 | 0.53 | 1.8 | 3.65 | 4.7 | 0.533 | 0.2629 | 0.2041 | 84 | 0 | team_a_win | 10 | -10 | true | false | true | 0.0171 |
claude | m85 | knockout | round_of_32 | Spain | Austria | 3 | 0 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.71 | 0.18 | 0.11 | team_b_win | 10 | Spain are deserved heavy favorites—three group-stage clean sheets, superior squad depth and Yamal—and my 90-minute estimate (Spain 71% / draw 18% / Austria 11%) closely tracks both Opta's supercomputer (70.6/17.3/12.2) and de-vigged FanDuel lines. That makes Spain's -300 moneyline slightly negative-EV after vig (breake... | correct | true | neither | I underweighted how completely Spain's midfield control would smother Austria's press and expose their leaky defense—the 3-0 margin points to a wider quality gap than my 71% implied. | I gave too much credence to Austria's 'upset path' (Spain missing wide attackers, Rodri below form, Yamal-dependence), which justified a small value bet on a longshot whose real edge was within model noise. | yes—I'd pass (no_bet), since the ~1-point Austria edge over the implied price was illusory and the disciplined move was to avoid a -EV-after-vig favorite and a noise-level longshot alike. | 0.7 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.71 | 0.1286 | 0.34249 | 0.71 | 1.31 | 5.25 | 10.5 | 0.7277 | 0.1816 | 0.0908 | 85 | 0 | team_a_win | 10 | -10 | true | false | true | 0.0192 |
claude | m86 | knockout | round_of_32 | Colombia | Ghana | 1 | 0 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.64 | 0.22 | 0.14 | team_b_win | 15 | Colombia are clear favorites—unbeaten Group K winners (7 pts, conceded once) with superior individuals (Díaz, Rodríguez, Muñoz) and no injuries; Opta simulations and the market both land ~64-65% for Colombia, matching my read, so there's no edge backing the favorite at -188. Ghana are blunt (2 goals, 2.86 xG in the gro... | partially_correct | true | neither | I underweighted how completely Ghana's attacking impotence (2 goals all tournament) capped their realistic win chance—my 14% was likely a touch generous versus the market's ~12.5%. | Knockout upset variance and Colombia's trouble breaking down low blocks, which I used to justify the Ghana longshot even though Colombia still ground out their trademark 1-0. | yes—no_bet, because both the market and Opta matched my own read, so my thin Ghana edge was within noise and didn't justify staking on a longshot. | 0.82 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.64 | 0.1976 | 0.446287 | 0.64 | 1.54 | 4 | 7 | 0.6231 | 0.2399 | 0.1371 | 86 | 0 | team_a_win | 15 | -15 | true | false | true | 0.0029 |
claude | m87 | knockout | round_of_32 | Argentina | Cabo Verde | 3 | 2 | team_a_win | regulation | team_a | 0.84 | 0.12 | 0.04 | no_bet | 0 | Argentina are reigning champions in excellent form (three group wins, eight goals, Messi leading scorers with six) versus debutants Cape Verde, who reached the Round of 32 on defensive resilience but minimal attacking output and now face a clear step up in opponent quality. Market consensus (Kalshi ~87%, bet365 -600, O... | correct | true | neither | Cape Verde's counter-attacking/transition scoring threat — they had already put two past Uruguay in the group stage, a signal I dismissed by framing their run as purely defensive; scoring twice against Argentina shows I underrated their ability to hurt elite sides. | The 'one-sided mismatch' narrative and Argentina's defensive control — I assumed the quality gap would yield a comfortable, low-danger win rather than the open 3-2 thriller it became. | no — my no-bet on the moneyline was disciplined and the near-upset confirms Argentina at ~-600 offered poor value, though in hindsight a both-teams-to-score or over 2.5 goals bet would have won. | 0.75 | 0 | team_a_win | true | 0.84 | 0.0416 | 0.174353 | 0.84 | 1.15 | 8.5 | 20 | 0.8384 | 0.1134 | 0.0482 | 87 | 0 | team_a_win | 0 | 0 | false | null | null | null |
claude | m88 | knockout | round_of_32 | Australia | Egypt | 1 | 1 | draw | penalties | team_b | 0.29 | 0.35 | 0.36 | draw | 20 | Sportsbooks (FanDuel/bet365) price Egypt ~+150, draw ~+190, Australia ~+230, implying de-vigged probabilities near Egypt 38% / draw 33% / Australia 29%; Egypt is a modest favorite on Salah's and Marmoush's individual quality. I nudge Egypt down and the draw up because Salah is managing a hamstring strain (cleared to fe... | correct | true | neither | I underweighted Australia's ability to actually score in a knockout — they got on the scoresheet (1-1) despite my 'chronic shortage of attacking threat' framing that implied a 0-0-type grind; it didn't hurt the draw bet, but my goal-suppression read was slightly too strong. | Salah's hamstring as a dampener on Egypt — I shaded Egypt down for it, yet Egypt still produced enough to draw and then advanced on penalties, so the downgrade was a touch aggressive. | no — the process was sound: I correctly identified a defensively-solid, low-scoring, Salah-compromised tie as more draw-prone than the market priced, and the small-stake draw bet at +190 profited. | 0.8 | 2 | team_b_win | false | 0.35 | 0.6362 | 1.049822 | 0.36 | 3.3 | 2.9 | 2.5 | 0.2892 | 0.3291 | 0.3817 | 88 | 2 | team_b_win | 20 | 38 | true | true | true | 0.0209 |
claude | m89 | knockout | round_of_16 | Paraguay | France | 0 | 1 | team_b_win | regulation | team_b | 0.06 | 0.15 | 0.79 | no_bet | 0 | Team A is Paraguay (W74), Team B is France (W77). France are deserved heavy favorites — four wins, no losses, Mbappé leading the Golden Boot race, and elite attacking depth (Dembélé, Olise, Barcola) behind a solid back line, while Paraguay are a defensively stubborn Cinderella who beat Germany on penalties but carry at... | correct | true | neither | none — if anything, the 1-0 vindicated my sub-market view that Paraguay's low block would suppress France's scoring rather than allow the projected 3-0 blowout. | none material; Paraguay's attacking-injury doubts (Enciso, Alderete) mattered less than expected since the game hinged on their defense, which held France to a single goal. | no — France won but only 1-0, and the -EV France price plus sub-1% Kelly edges on the draw/Paraguay make no_bet process-correct regardless of the result. | 0.8 | 2 | team_b_win | true | 0.79 | 0.0702 | 0.235722 | 0.79 | 18 | 7 | 1.18 | 0.0531 | 0.1366 | 0.8103 | 89 | 2 | team_b_win | 0 | 0 | false | null | null | null |
claude | m90 | knockout | round_of_16 | Canada | Morocco | 0 | 3 | team_b_win | regulation | team_b | 0.2 | 0.28 | 0.52 | no_bet | 0 | Team A is Canada (W73, beat South Africa 1-0) and Team B is Morocco (W75, beat Netherlands on penalties). Morocco is the clear side to back — 2022 semifinalists, AFCON champions on a long unbeaten run, deeper and more talented (Hakimi, Diaz, Saibari), and 3-1 all-time vs Canada — while Canada is organized and dangerous... | correct | true | neither | Morocco's ceiling — I underweighted the quality/depth gap and their ability to convert dominance into a comfortable multi-goal win, not just a narrow one. | The 'two organized, low-scoring sides = tight, draw-prone game' thesis, plus Canada's flattering underlying xG numbers, which pulled my draw probability up and my picture of the margin toward a coin-flip grind. | no — no_bet was the disciplined and correct call, and the marginal draw lean I declined to stake would have lost, so restraint was validated. | 0.7 | 2 | team_b_win | true | 0.52 | 0.3488 | 0.653926 | 0.52 | 4.9 | 3.65 | 1.77 | 0.1957 | 0.2627 | 0.5417 | 90 | 2 | team_b_win | 0 | 0 | false | null | null | null |
claude | m91 | knockout | round_of_16 | Mexico | England | 2 | 3 | team_b_win | regulation | team_b | 0.33 | 0.29 | 0.38 | team_a_win | 25 | England (FIFA #4) have the superior squad and Kane in historic form (5 goals in 4 games), so the market rightly makes them slight favorites (~+140, implied ~40%). But Mexico enters unbeaten with four clean sheets and, crucially, plays at the Azteca (2,200m altitude, hostile crowd) where they've lost just twice in 89 co... | partially_correct | true | neither | England's individual attacking quality (Kane/Bellingham/wide pace) was decisive enough to score three away at altitude—I underweighted how much elite finishing can neutralize a fortress venue. | The Azteca altitude/home-crowd 'fortress' effect, which I let push Mexico up and drive the bet even though it wasn't enough to overcome the talent gap. | yes—I backed Mexico on a ~2% thin edge while my own model made England the modal pick, so I should have chosen no_bet or a much smaller stake rather than $25 against my own favorite. | 0.72 | 2 | team_b_win | true | 0.38 | 0.5774 | 0.967584 | 0.38 | 3.45 | 3.2 | 2.25 | 0.2769 | 0.2985 | 0.4246 | 91 | 2 | team_b_win | 25 | -25 | true | false | true | 0.0531 |
claude | m92 | knockout | round_of_16 | Brazil | Norway | 1 | 2 | team_b_win | regulation | team_b | 0.5 | 0.27 | 0.23 | team_b_win | 15 | The de-vigged market consensus is roughly Brazil 52% / draw 26% / Norway 22%, and Brazil is the higher-quality, better-defended side (0.74 xGA per game), so this is close to a fair line. I lean marginally toward Norway being underpriced because Brazil's midfield is depleted (Paqueta out, Raphinha only bench-fit), their... | partially_correct | true | lucky | I underweighted how thoroughly Brazil's depleted midfield (Paqueta out, Raphinha unfit) would fail to control the game, letting Norway's Haaland-Odegaard axis dictate a full win rather than just a scare. | Brazil's pedigree and defensive record (0.74 xGA/game, clean sheets) — I let their class anchor them at 0.50 despite citing structural fragilities that my own reasoning suggested were more decisive. | no — the Norway value lean was correct on process and the stake was appropriately small for a thin edge, so increasing it based on one favorable result would just be outcome bias. | 0.65 | 0 | team_a_win | false | 0.23 | 0.9158 | 1.469676 | 0.5 | 1.91 | 3.6 | 4.1 | 0.5009 | 0.2658 | 0.2333 | 92 | 0 | team_a_win | 15 | 46.5 | true | true | true | -0.0033 |
claude | m93 | knockout | round_of_16 | USA | Belgium | 1 | 4 | team_b_win | regulation | team_b | 0.38 | 0.27 | 0.35 | team_a_win | 15 | The market is essentially a pick 'em (Opta: USA 37.2% / Belgium 36.5%; no-vig book lines ~36% each, draw ~28%), so there's no large edge in any direction. I nudge slightly toward the USA on home advantage in Seattle, a partisan crowd, strong tournament form (2+ goals in all four games), and Balogun's reinstatement, aga... | incorrect | false | neither | Belgium's individual attacking quality and the predictive weight of their recent 5-2 head-to-head win, which I explicitly discounted as 'just friendlies' but which signaled a real talent gap that showed up as a 3-goal margin. | USA's home-field advantage and partisan Seattle crowd, plus their tournament goal-scoring form, which I let nudge me to the wrong side of a pick-'em market. | yes—I would have chosen no_bet or a small Belgium lean, respecting the individual-quality and head-to-head signals over the home bump. | 0.6 | 0 | team_a_win | false | 0.35 | 0.6398 | 1.049822 | 0.38 | 2.6 | 3.4 | 2.75 | 0.369 | 0.2822 | 0.3489 | 93 | 0 | team_a_win | 15 | -15 | true | false | false | 0.011 |
claude | m94 | knockout | round_of_16 | Portugal | Spain | 0 | 1 | team_b_win | regulation | team_b | 0.24 | 0.29 | 0.47 | draw | 20 | Market and models converge on Spain as clear favorites (Opta 49.2%, Kalshi 51%, bet365 -111), driven by four clean sheets and a 34-game unbeaten run; my Spain and Portugal numbers essentially match the market, so neither offers value. The one soft edge is the draw at +250 (implied ~28.6%): this Iberian derby has produc... | partially_correct | true | neither | Spain's quality edge means a tight, low-scoring game favors them to nick it 1-0 rather than stay level; I treated 'tight' as 'likely drawn' when tight matches usually break toward the better side. | The Iberian derby's history of high draw frequency and both teams' cautious tendencies, which led me to shade the draw above the market and stake on it. | yes, I would have chosen no_bet since my draw lean rested on a soft qualitative edge that was quantitatively negligible against an efficient market. | 0.7 | 2 | team_b_win | true | 0.47 | 0.4226 | 0.755023 | 0.47 | 4.1 | 3.6 | 1.91 | 0.2333 | 0.2658 | 0.5009 | 94 | 2 | team_b_win | 20 | -20 | true | false | true | 0.0242 |
End of preview. Expand in Data Studio
WC2026-Agents
A contamination-free benchmark of four frontier LLMs acting as autonomous forecasting agents over the entire 2026 FIFA World Cup (104 matches). Each agent — Claude Opus 4.8, ChatGPT (GPT-5.5, high reasoning), Gemini 3.1 Pro, and Grok (Expert Mode) — ran an identical search → act → reflect loop per match: search the web, commit to a 1X2 (team-A win / draw / team-B win) probability and a virtual $100 bet, and, after the match, reflect given only the final score. Every match kicked off after the models' training cutoffs, so the targets cannot appear in any model's training data. The pre-match betting market is included as a fifth competitor via per-match 1X2 odds.
📄 Paper: arXiv:2607.17765 — FIFA World Cup 2026 as a Contamination-Free Benchmark for LLM Forecasting Agents: Four Models, a Bookmaker, and 104 Matches 💻 Code: https://github.com/graphuofm/FIFA2026LLM
What's inside
| Config | File | Rows | What |
|---|---|---|---|
forecasts (default) |
data/forecasts.csv |
416 | One row per (agent, match): probabilities, bet, verbatim reasoning, the 8 reflection fields, outcome, market-implied probs, and settled P&L |
metrics |
data/model_metrics.csv |
5 | Accuracy / Brier / log-loss / ECE per agent + market |
betting_summary |
data/betting_summary.csv |
— | ROI, bankroll, hit-rate per agent |
final_factor_probe |
data/final_factor_probe.csv |
7 | Final/bronze-only "which narrative factors influenced you" probe |
schedule |
metadata/schedule.csv |
104 | Fixtures (group + knockout), stage, venue, kickoff |
results |
metadata/results.csv |
104 | Ground truth incl. penalty shootouts and who advanced |
odds |
metadata/odds.csv |
104 | Pre-match 1X2 odds with source URL, vig-removed implied probs |
raw/ |
raw/*.txt |
— | Original per-model transcripts (read-only) + the prompt templates |
Coverage: 4 agents × 104 matches = 416 forecasts and 414 reflections (two Gemini group reflections are absent in the source and flagged, not imputed).
Key columns in forecasts
- Identity:
model,match_id,phase(group/knockout),stage,team_a,team_b - Truth:
outcome∈ {team_a_win, draw, team_b_win} (90-minute result; a draw for the four penalty ties),decided_by,advanced - Forecast:
p_a,p_draw,p_b,bet_pick,bet_stake,reasoning - Reflection:
refl_outcome,refl_calibrated,refl_luck,refl_missed,refl_overweighted,refl_bet_diff,refl_conf - Market & P&L:
imp_home/imp_draw/imp_away,odds_*_dec,is_bet,profit,contrarian
Knockout outcome is the 90-minute result (how a 1X2 bet settles); penalty
shootout winners are recorded separately in advanced / results.
Load it
from datasets import load_dataset
ds = load_dataset("dingjiacheng/wc2026-agents", "forecasts") # default
odds = load_dataset("dingjiacheng/wc2026-agents", "odds")
Or just read the CSVs with pandas.
Headline results (reference evaluation)
- The four agents pick the same outcome in 92% of matches; none beats the market's Brier score — indeed a flat stake on the market favourite out-earns all four agents.
- They diverge as decision-makers: betting ROI from −18% to +10%; fading the market is unprofitable for all four; market-citation in reasoning ranges 12% (Gemini) to 100% (Claude); self-reported error rate on wrong picks ranges 36% (ChatGPT) to 86% (Gemini).
Ethics
All betting is virtual; the dataset is a measurement instrument, not gambling advice. Records are model outputs and public fixtures/scores/odds — no human subjects or personal data.
Citation
@misc{ding2026wc2026agents,
title = {{FIFA} World Cup 2026 as a Contamination-Free Benchmark for
{LLM} Forecasting Agents: Four Models, a Bookmaker, and 104 Matches},
author = {Ding, Jiacheng and Guo, Cong and Xu, Jason},
year = {2026},
eprint = {2607.17765},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
primaryClass = {cs.LG},
url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.17765}
}
- Downloads last month
- 46