Match ☆ 14 Mar 2004
SCO · Scottish Premiership · 2003
HT 0–1 Referee: Tom Brown
View head-to-head record →
Match stats
19 Shots 6
7 Shots on target 4
8 Corners 4
11 Fouls 14
1 Yellow cards 0
0 Red cards 0
Betting odds
1X2 (match) betting odds
Bet365 home win odds 1.071
Bet365 draw odds 7.5
Bet365 away win odds 19
Gamebookers home win odds 1.07
Gamebookers draw odds 7.5
Gamebookers away win odds 21
Interwetten home win odds 1.1
Interwetten draw odds 7
Interwetten away win odds 15
Ladbrokes home win odds 1.1
Ladbrokes draw odds 6.5
Ladbrokes away win odds 17
Sporting Odds home win odds 1.09
Sporting Odds draw odds 7
Sporting Odds away win odds 17
Sportingbet home win odds 1.1
Sportingbet draw odds 6.5
Sportingbet away win odds 21
William Hill home win odds 1.07
William Hill draw odds 7
William Hill away win odds 21
The models what they said before kick-off
Draw predictor · this site's own figures
Figure Celtic Motherwell
N — no-draw runmatches in a row without a draw 20 11
Max Nthis team's longest run ever 35 15
E — draw debtexpected draws over the current run 1.96 1.91
p50 — last 50draw rate over its last 50 matches 8.0% 18.0%
p100 — last 100draw rate over its last 100 matches 11.0% 17.0%
Draw % — all timeshare of every match drawn 18.6% 24.2%
Σ Nboth sides' runs added 31
Σ Eboth sides' draw debt added 3.87

These are the figures that held before kick-off: each side's record over every match it had played before 14 Mar 2004, computed exactly as the predictor computes today's. Draw score and rank are left out: both place a team against the whole field, and the field can only be scored as it stands now.

Team strength · Elo
Celtic 2,000 after: 1,991
Motherwell 1,616 after: 1,624
Rating gap +449 home advantage included
Draws at this gap 14.0% 300+ · 22,514 matches
Goals model · Dixon-Coles
Expected goals 2.62 – 0.66 home – away
Home win 78.9%
Draw 14.3% every level score added up
Away win 6.8%
Both together · the blend
Blended draw chance 14.2% 75% goals model · 25% Elo gap
Goals model said 14.3% form only
This Elo gap said 14.0% strength only

The mix is the one that scored best over 544,576 matches — the two are averaged on the log-odds scale, not simply added.

The regression · the logistic model
Logistic draw chance 11.1% five signals, then recalibrated
95% band 10.4% – 11.1% how unsure the fit is, not the match
The blend says 14.2% the older published reading

A regression over five signals — the goals model, the draw rate at this Elo gap, the expected goals in the fixture and the competition's own base draw rate — with an isotonic map on top to put the level back where reality is. Held out on a decade it never saw it beat the blend above, which is why both are shown here while one is chosen. Unlike the two readings above it, this one is not leak-free: the model was fitted on all of history, this match included, so for a played match it is a description rather than a prediction.

Both figures are what the models knew before this match — neither ever reads the result it is describing, so they can be compared with what actually happened. Measured over 160,869 priced matches the goals model is slightly worse than the bookmakers (how it is scored), so a high draw chance means an even, low-scoring match rather than value. Descriptive statistics, not betting advice.