1. Division · Wednesday, 26 August 2026 · 18:00. Our rating makes this 74% to go over 2.5 goals, so our lean is over. The 1. Division average is 67%.
Open this match in the app →| Market | Yes | No | Our call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Over 2.5 goals | 74% | 26% | Over |
| Over 3.5 goals | 51% | 49% | Over |
| Both teams to score | 66% | 34% | Yes |
The result model puts Moss at 52%, the draw at 20% and Sogndal at 28%, from expected goals of 2.29 and 1.64.
| Market | Price | Implied | Our rating | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Over 2.5 goals | 1.30 | 73% | 74% | +1% |
| Under 2.5 goals | 3.50 | 27% | 26% | -1% |
| Both teams to score | 1.30 | 72% | 66% | -7% |
Implied percentages have the bookmaker's margin removed, so they add to 100 and can be compared with our rating directly. Edge is simply the gap between the two. A positive edge means our model thinks the outcome is likelier than the price suggests — it is not a tip, and a high probability with a negative edge is a poor bet however safe it looks. Prices are a pre-match snapshot from a single bookmaker and move constantly.
Match odds: Moss 2.20, draw 3.70, Sogndal 2.55.
The league sets the starting point. 1. Division has produced over 2.5 goals in 67% of its matches, and that is where a team with no record of its own would sit.
Each side's own record. Moss have 16 in 18 this season (6 of 8 at home), Sogndal 14 in 18 (8 of 9 away). Those records are pulled toward the league rate with the weight of about 32 matches — enough that two or three unusual games cannot swing a rating — giving 75% and 73%.
The mix. Weighted 40% home side, 40% away side and 20% league — the split that beat every alternative across 30,582 matches of testing — that gives 73%.
Head to head. These sides have met 6 times in three years, producing over 2.5 goals in 83%. That nudges the number 10% of the way toward the head-to-head pattern — deliberately small, because fixtures change more than reputations do — landing on 74%.
Goal expectation. Separately a Poisson model built from attack and defence strength — using real expected-goals data where the league has it — puts this match at 75%, from expected goals of 2.29 for Moss and 1.64 for Sogndal. Folding in 30% of that view gives 74%.
This breakdown is generated from the same inputs the rating uses, so it cannot describe a calculation we did not perform. The full model is set out in the methodology.
More: Moss season stats · Sogndal season stats · 1. Division table and form. Ratings are calibrated probabilities, not tips — a 60% call is expected to miss two times in five.