Match ☆ 22 Aug 1998
AUT · Austrian Cup · 1998
SV Stockerau advance · won 5–3 on penalties
AET 2–2
View head-to-head record →
The models what they said before kick-off
Draw predictor · this site's own figures
Figure FC Hard SV Stockerau
N — no-draw runmatches in a row without a draw 1 1
Max Nthis team's longest run ever 4 4
E — draw debtexpected draws over the current run 0.08 0.21
p50 — last 50draw rate over its last 50 matches 8.3% 22.0%
p100 — last 100draw rate over its last 100 matches 8.3% 20.4%
Draw % — all timeshare of every match drawn 8.3% 20.4%
Σ Nboth sides' runs added 2
Σ Eboth sides' draw debt added 0.29

These are the figures that held before kick-off: each side's record over every match it had played before 22 Aug 1998, 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
FC Hard 1,522 after: 1,520
SV Stockerau 1,536 after: 1,537
Rating gap +51 home advantage included
Draws at this gap 25.0% 50–74 · 79,147 matches
Goals model · Dixon-Coles
Expected goals 1.43 – 2.16 home – away
Home win 24.7%
Draw 21.5% every level score added up
Away win 53.9%
Both together · the blend
Blended draw chance 22.3% 75% goals model · 25% Elo gap
Goals model said 21.5% form only
This Elo gap said 25.0% 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 18.3% five signals, then recalibrated
95% band 18.3% – 18.3% how unsure the fit is, not the match
The blend says 22.3% 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.