Singapore versus China, International Friendly
Main Outcome · settledBTTS yes
Both teams to score
ConvictionBTTS yes
Both teams to score
SharpCast Builder
ProSame game multiEvery leg is one of this fixture’s own SharpCast Picks, combined and priced on the correlation between them — the structural edge bookmakers miss because they price each leg as if it were independent.
Result markets
The model rates China +2 at 87%. The bookmakers have not priced this market here, so the fair price shown is the model’s own and the read stands alone. It falls out of an expected 1.27 goals for the home side and 1.66 for the away (2.92 total) across the simulated scorelines.
The model rates China or draw at 72%. The bookmakers have not priced this market here, so the fair price shown is the model’s own and the read stands alone. It falls out of an expected 1.27 goals for the home side and 1.66 for the away (2.92 total) across the simulated scorelines.
The model rates China draw no bet at 60%. The bookmakers have not priced this market here, so the fair price shown is the model’s own and the read stands alone. It falls out of an expected 1.27 goals for the home side and 1.66 for the away (2.92 total) across the simulated scorelines.
The model leans China to win at 42 percent, close to a coin flip. This is the model's line, not a recommended bet.
Goals markets
The model rates Over 1.5 at 76%. The bookmakers have not priced this market here, so the fair price shown is the model’s own and the read stands alone. It falls out of an expected 1.27 goals for the home side and 1.66 for the away (2.92 total) across the simulated scorelines.
mainThe model rates BTTS yes at 55%. The bookmakers have not priced this market here, so the fair price shown is the model’s own and the read stands alone. It falls out of an expected 1.27 goals for the home side and 1.66 for the away (2.92 total) across the simulated scorelines.
Combined markets
The model leans China to win and BTTS no at 22 percent, close to a coin flip. This is the model's line, not a recommended bet.
Each settled row is tinted and badged by whether the filed pick landed. The board is the locked record and does not move.
Showing the filed assumptions. Toggle the input to see the distribution recompute as a client side estimate, not the filed model.
Each crest sits by its recent expected goals created (right is more) and conceded (higher is a meaner defence), recency weighted so current form leads. The aqua diamond is the model's call for this fixture: a side creates its own expected goals and concedes the opponent's, so the dashed line shows how far the model pulls each side off its recent run for this matchup. The grey lines are the competition average.
finishing above xG · conceding above xC
finishing below xG · conceding above xC
How to read this
Each row is a recent match, newest at the bottom. The solid dot is the goals that landed; the hollow dot is the expected value on the same scale. For scoring that is xG, expected goals; for conceding it is xC, expected goals conceded, what a side would be expected to let in from the chances it allowed. A solid dot to the right of its hollow twin means more goals than expected (sharp finishing when scoring, leaky defending when conceding); to the left means the reverse. These rates anchor the projected 1.3 and 1.7 goals that produce the most likely scorelines below.
Most likely 2 goals.
Running on the league baseline, no team cards history yet. Treat as a guide, not a team specific read.
- Over / Under 3.5 cardsO 53%·U 47%
- Over / Under 4.5 cardsO 33%·U 67%
- Over / Under 5.5 cardsO 18%·U 82%
- Over / Under 6.5 cardsO 9%·U 91%
Appointment confirmed. SharpCast has no settled match history for this official yet, so the profile builds as they officiate. Card strictness is not yet part of the model.
This call rests on Dixon Coles strength, time decayed form, expected goals and the de overrounded market consensus, across 10,000 simulated matches. It was locked before kickoff and is kept on this site.