| Figure | FC København | Lugano | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| N — no-draw runmatches in a row without a draw | 0 | 7 | matches in a row without a draw |
| Max Nthis team's longest run ever | 20 | 16 | this team's longest run ever |
| E — draw debtexpected draws over the current run | 0.00 | 1.50 | expected draws over the current run |
| p50 — last 50draw rate over its last 50 matches | 18.0% | 22.0% | draw rate over its last 50 matches |
| p100 — last 100draw rate over its last 100 matches | 18.0% | 21.0% | draw rate over its last 100 matches |
| Draw % — all timeshare of every match drawn | 22.8% | 21.8% | share of every match drawn |
| Draw scorethe predictor ranking score | 0.059 | 0.351 | the predictor ranking score |
| Rankposition in that ranking | 1,906 | 331 | position in that ranking |
| Σ Nboth sides' runs added | 7 | both sides' runs added | |
| Σ Eboth sides' draw debt added | 1.50 | both sides' draw debt added | |
| Σ Scorewhat the Cross predictor orders by | 0.410 | what the Cross predictor orders by | |
The mix is the one that scored best over 544,576 matches — the two are averaged on the log-odds scale, not simply added.
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. This is a real forecast: the fixture had not been played when the model was fitted.
A forecast from every match played so far. 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.