RB Leipzig beat Hamburg SV 5–0. Bawler's model had RB Leipzig in front at 63% before kickoff, and that is how it finished. It forecast 3.5 goals; the match produced 5. RB Leipzig had 19 shots (6 on target) to Hamburg SV's 10 (4), with 64% of the ball against 36%. Expected goals finished 2.4 to 0.9.
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. Shots and corners are not shown for this fixture — we do not have enough counted matches for these sides yet.
What we published for this match, strongest first — our three strongest above the line.
Chance of at least one goal before half-time: 79%
Shots and corners are not shown for this fixture — we do not have enough counted matches for these sides yet.
RB Leipzig beat Hamburg SV 5–0. Bawler's model had RB Leipzig in front at 63% before kickoff, and that is how it finished. It forecast 3.5 goals; the match produced 5. RB Leipzig had 19 shots (6 on target) to Hamburg SV's 10 (4), with 64% of the ball against 36%. Expected goals finished 2.4 to 0.9.
RB Leipzig 5–0 Hamburg SV, played on 13 Sept 2026 in the Germany: Bundesliga. Bawler's model had gone into it with RB Leipzig 63%, the draw 20% and Hamburg SV 17%.
Full-time: Possession 64%–36%, Expected goals (xG) 2.4–0.9, Shots 19–10, Shots on target 6–4, Shots inside box 12–7, Big chances 3–0, Corners 7–7, Saves 4–1, Fouls 11–13, Offsides 0–3, Yellow cards 1–2.
No. It finished 5–0, so Hamburg SV failed to score. Bawler's model had put both teams scoring at 62% before kickoff.
Every call is published before kickoff and graded afterwards, misses included. On this match: Our call — we said RB Leipzig to win 63%, it finished RB Leipzig won (63% called); Total goals — we said 3.5, it finished 5; Both teams to score — we said 62%, it finished No.