Nasaf W vs Beijing Beikong W
What we said before kickoff Result: Beijing Beikong W win
Nasaf W winPick
58.2%
Draw
21.5%
Beijing Beikong W win Result
20.2%
How our picks did
Based on the final score. It joins the public record at the next nightly settlement.
Match result
Our pickNasaf W win · 58.2%
What happenedBeijing Beikong W win · we gave it 20.2%
Missed Over 2.5 goals
Our pickOver · 54.6%
What happenedOver · 3 goals
Hit Both teams to score
Our pickNo · 52.6%
What happenedYes · 1–2
Missed How surprising was it?
Result: Beijing Beikong W win. In our numbers it ranked third of the three.
20%
chance we gave it0%50%100%
1 in 4.9
on average A pick at 58% is expected to miss about 4 times in 10. One match does not judge a model. The record across every settled match does.
See the full record
Timeline
Newest at the bottom
GoalM. Egamberdieva · assist L. Karachik
27' 46'
SubstitutionY. Peng off · Zeng Yujia on
SubstitutionI. Ablyakimova off · M. Khikmatova on
65' 67'
SubstitutionA. Congo off · F. Yu on
67'
SubstitutionX. Liu off · Yujie Zhao on
70'
GoalWang Yanwen
Yellow cardN. Kudratova
72' 84'
GoalWang Yanwen
SubstitutionZ. Mamatkarimova off · S. Khusniddinova on
87' SubstitutionM. Egamberdieva off · Z. Norboeva on
87' Yellow cardZ. Norboeva
88' 90+2'
SubstitutionWang Yanwen off · Lu Jiayu on
Both teams to score
Yes47.4%
No52.6%
Total goals · 2.5
Over 2.554.6%
Under 2.545.4%
How much we know
Nasaf W history8 matches
Beijing Beikong W history0 matches
Signals used362
Not includedTeam news
Your calls on this match
Made on this device before kickoff, compared with the result.
Life of this match
Every step is time-stamped, from first prediction to settled result.
- Prediction publishedBefore kickoff, 6 d 5 h ahead29 Oct · 08:38 UTC
- Re-published 16 more timesThe numbers did not changeLatest 2 Nov · 18:58 UTC
- Kickoff4 Nov · 14:30 UTC
- Full time: 1–2One of our three picks hit
- Added to the public recordSettled automatically, nightly at 03:17 UTC
Share this result
A picture made for this match: teams, our probabilities and the verified stamp. Works in chats and on social.
The card keeps the pre-match numbers. A miss is shared as plainly as a hit.
How reliable are picks like this?
Across 15,112 settled matches since 24 Aug 2026, grouped by how confident the top pick was.
How often the top pick won What the model said on average
33–39% Won 40.1% · said 37.7% · n 2,635
40–49% Won 45.4% · said 44.8% · n 6,162
50–59% Won 55.8% · said 54.4% · n 3,719
60–69% Won 63.6% · said 64.3% · n 1,851
70–79% Won 76.2% · said 73.9% · n 583
80%+ Won 83.3% · said 84.5% · n 162
This pick sits in the 50–59% band (58.2%). Picks in that band won 55.8% of the time, and the model said 54.4% on average, over 3,719 matches.
Why Nasaf W are the pick
Four things in the data that move the probabilities most. Real values for this match.
-
Nasaf W are rated 36 Elo points higher
Elo 1,536 against 1,500. On rating alone Nasaf W would be expected to take 55% of the points on offer.
These are long-run records. The prediction does not include team news such as injuries, suspensions or the starting lineup.
Compare the two teams
Every signal the model reads for this match, side by side: 138 for each team and 86 gaps between them.
Values come from each team's earlier matches. Bars compare the two sides of each signal.
Beijing Beikong W@include('fixtures.partials.crest', ['team' => $away, 'size' => 'sm', 'lazy' => true])
ELO & ratings10 signals 100
1536.1
ELO
1500.0
8
ELO · Matches
0
1536.1
Current Team ELO
1500.0
1500.0
Current Opponent ELO
1536.1
36.06
Current ELO Difference
-36.06
0.55
Expected score
0.45
8
History Matches
0
0.18
Residual Mean
—
55.13
Overperformance
—
0.18
Recent 10 Residual Mean
—
Recent form16 signals 160
5
Matches
0
1.80
PPG
—
4.40
Goals for per game
—
0.60
Goals against per game
—
60.0%
Win rate
—
8
Matches
0
2.00
PPG
—
3.25
Goals for per game
—
0.63
Goals against per game
—
62.5%
Win rate
—
3.25
Recent 10 Goals Mean
—
3.56
Recent 10 Goals Std
—
0.63
Recent 10 Conceded Mean
—
0.70
Recent 10 Conceded Std
—
0.82
Recent 10 Result Entropy
—
4.00
Recent 10 Goal Difference Std
—
Overall performance9 signals 90
8
Matches
0
2.00
PPG
—
62.5%
Win rate
—
12.5%
Draw rate
—
25.0%
Loss rate
—
75.0%
Over 1.5 rate
—
62.5%
Over 2.5 rate
—
25.0%
Over 3.5 rate
—
4.00
Goal difference · Standard deviation
—
Venue performance10 signals 100
2
Matches
0
1.50
PPG
—
50.0%
Win rate
—
0.0%
Draw rate
—
50.0%
Loss rate
—
50.0%
Over 1.5 rate
—
50.0%
Over 2.5 rate
—
50.0%
Over 3.5 rate
—
6.00
Goal difference · Standard deviation
—
2
History Matches
0
Scoring & attack16 signals 160
3.25
Goals for per game
—
87.5%
Scoring rate
—
37.5%
BTTS rate
—
5.50
Goals for per game
—
50.0%
Scoring rate
—
0.0%
BTTS rate
—
9.00
Goals for per game
—
100.0%
Scoring rate
—
0.0%
BTTS rate
—
8
History Matches
0
3.25
Goals Mean
—
3.56
Goals Std
—
87.5%
Scored 1+ rate
—
50.0%
Scored 2+ rate
—
37.5%
Scored 3+ rate
—
5.50
Venue Goals Mean
—
Defense & conceding12 signals 120
0.63
Goals against per game
—
50.0%
Conceding rate
—
0.50
Goals against per game
—
50.0%
Conceding rate
—
0.00
Goals against per game
—
0.0%
Conceding rate
—
8
History Matches
0
0.63
Conceded Mean
—
0.70
Conceded Std
—
12.5%
Conceded 2+ rate
—
0.0%
Conceded 3+ rate
—
0.50
Venue Conceded Mean
—
Clean sheets & scoring failure11 signals 110
50.0%
Clean-sheet rate
—
12.5%
Failed-to-score rate
—
50.0%
Clean-sheet rate
—
50.0%
Failed-to-score rate
—
100.0%
Clean-sheet rate
—
0.0%
Failed-to-score rate
—
50.0%
Clean-sheet rate
—
12.5%
Failed-to-score rate
—
50.0%
Clean-sheet rate
—
50.0%
Failed-to-score rate
—
50.0%
Clean-sheet rate
—
Volatility & stability4 signals 40
8
History Matches
0
0.82
Result entropy
—
4.00
Goal Difference Std
—
18.06
Stability score
—
Halftime resilience7 signals 70
8
Eligible Matches
0
4
Lead Matches
0
100.0%
Lead Win Rate
—
1.00
Lead Points Retention
—
1
Trailing Matches
0
0.0%
Non-loss rate
—
0.0%
Trailing Win Rate
—
Goal timing5 signals 50
8
Halftime Coverage Matches
0
1.50
First Half Goals For Mean
—
0.38
First Half Goals Against Mean
—
1.75
Second Half Goals For Mean
—
0.25
Second Half Goals Against Mean
—
Rest & schedule9 signals 90
72.98
Rest days
—
0
Matches Previous 7 Days
0
0
Matches Previous 14 Days
0
3
Short Rest History Matches
0
2.00
Short Rest Points Per Match
—
1
Normal Rest History Matches
0
3.00
Normal Rest Points Per Match
—
3
Long Rest History Matches
0
1.33
Long Rest Points Per Match
—
Competition & season17 signals 170
No value for this match · The model could not compute these from the match history available for this fixture.
Portability PPG StdPortability PPG RangePortability Score
2
Matches
0
3.00
PPG
—
100.0%
Win rate
—
0.0%
Draw rate
—
0.0%
Loss rate
—
100.0%
Over 1.5 rate
—
100.0%
Over 2.5 rate
—
100.0%
Over 3.5 rate
—
2.00
Goal difference · Standard deviation
—
2
Current Competition Matches
0
3.00
Current Competition PPG
—
9.00
Current Competition Goal Difference Mean
—
2
Competition Season Count
0
1
Eligible Competition Season Count
0
Odds & market11 signals 110
No value for this match · The model could not compute these from the match history available for this fixture.
Win ProbabilityDraw ProbabilityOpponent ProbabilityBookmakersActual · Win rateExpected · Win rateWin ResidualPoints ResidualPower score
No
Available
No
0
Matches
0
Sample & availability1 signal 10
8
Clean History Matches
0
Matchup differences86 signals 086
No value for this match · The model could not compute these from the match history available for this fixture.
PPGGFGAPPGPPGPPGPPGWin ProbabilityDraw ProbabilityOpponent ProbabilityBookmakersActual · Win rateExpected · Win rateWin ResidualPoints ResidualPower scoreClean-sheet rateFailed-to-score rateClean-sheet rateFailed-to-score rateGoals MeanGoals StdScored 1+ rateScored 2+ rateScored 3+ rateVenue Goals MeanRecent 10 Goals MeanRecent 10 Goals StdConceded MeanConceded StdClean-sheet rateConceded 2+ rateConceded 3+ rateVenue Conceded MeanRecent 10 Conceded MeanRecent 10 Conceded StdResult entropyGoal Difference StdStability scoreRecent 10 Result EntropyRecent 10 Goal Difference StdLead Win RateLead Points RetentionNon-loss rateTrailing Win RateFirst Half Goals For MeanFirst Half Goals Against MeanSecond Half Goals For MeanSecond Half Goals Against MeanCurrent Competition PPGCurrent Competition Goal Difference MeanPortability PPG StdPortability PPG RangePortability ScoreRest daysShort Rest Points Per MatchNormal Rest Points Per MatchLong Rest Points Per MatchResidual MeanOverperformanceRecent 10 Residual Mean
ELO36.06
AvailableNo
Matches0
Clean History Matches8
History Matches2
History Matches8
History Matches8
History Matches8
Eligible Matches8
Lead Matches4
Trailing Matches1
Halftime Coverage Matches8
Current Competition Matches2
Competition Season Count2
Eligible Competition Season Count1
Matches Previous 7 Days0
Matches Previous 14 Days0
Short Rest History Matches3
Normal Rest History Matches1
Long Rest History Matches3
Current Team ELO36.06
Current Opponent ELO-36.06
Current ELO Difference72.13
Expected score0.10
History Matches8
Latest results, with our pick
Every result shows what we predicted before the match. Misses are shown as clearly as hits.
Nasaf W
W
Melbourne City W0–2Nasaf W1 Nov · away
Pick: Melbourne City W 68% · missed Earlier results appear as match history is added
Beijing Beikong W
W
Beijing Beikong W6–0Kaya W1 Nov · home
Pick: Beijing Beikong W 44% · hit Earlier results appear as match history is added
Match report
Nasaf W and Beijing Beikong W finished 1–2 in AFC Women's Champions League on Wednesday 4 November 2026. It was 1–0 at half time. ScoreProb published its prediction on 29 Oct, 08:38 UTC, before kickoff: Nasaf W win 58.2%, draw 21.5%, Beijing Beikong W win 20.2%. One of the three picks hit.
Predictions come from a statistical model that reads 362 signals about both teams, and are published before kickoff. Each one is graded automatically from the final score, and misses stay on the record. They are probabilities, not guarantees.