FC Famalicao and Gil Vicente drew 0–0. Bawler's model favoured FC Famalicao at 43% before kickoff and got it wrong — it gave the draw 29%. It forecast 2.4 goals; nobody scored. FC Famalicao had 7 shots (1 on target) to Gil Vicente's 7 (1), with 56% of the ball against 44%. Expected goals finished 0.2 to 0.3.
Published before kickoff and settled afterwards — misses included. Every call is time-stamped to the Bitcoin blockchain before the match so it cannot be edited later.
What we expected before kickoff.
Each row is drawn on one scale, so a bar means the same length on both sides. Second-half goals are our full-match forecast minus our first half.
What we published for this match, strongest first — our three strongest above the line.
Chance of at least one goal before half-time: 73%
First-half numbers are our full-match forecast split by how much of each side's shooting and corners usually comes before the break. The small bars under each number are that side's most recent first halves (up to six).
FC Famalicao and Gil Vicente drew 0–0. Bawler's model favoured FC Famalicao at 43% before kickoff and got it wrong — it gave the draw 29%. It forecast 2.4 goals; nobody scored. FC Famalicao had 7 shots (1 on target) to Gil Vicente's 7 (1), with 56% of the ball against 44%. Expected goals finished 0.2 to 0.3.
FC Famalicao 0–0 Gil Vicente, played on 30 Aug 2026 in the PORTUGAL: Liga Portugal. Bawler's model had gone into it with FC Famalicao 43%, the draw 29% and Gil Vicente 28%.
Full-time: Possession 56%–44%, Expected goals (xG) 0.2–0.3, Shots 7–7, Shots on target 1–1, Shots inside box 2–3, Big chances 0–0, Corners 6–3, Saves 1–1, Fouls 10–19, Offsides 0–1, Yellow cards 2–4.
No. It finished 0–0, so FC Famalicao failed to score. Bawler's model had put both teams scoring at 49% before kickoff.
Every call is published before kickoff and graded afterwards, misses included. On this match: Our call — we said FC Famalicao or draw 72%, it finished Draw (29% called); Total goals — we said 2.4, it finished 0; Both teams to score — we said 49%, it finished No.