Nottingham Forest vs Coventry: AI analysis
Analyses are for information only and do not guarantee any result.
AI probabilities
Confidence level
High score: the available signals (form, odds, statistics) clearly converge. This qualifies the consistency of the analysis, not a probability of winning.
Odds
Odds movement · 1 · NFO
Bookmaker odds for outcome 1 over 2 readings: from 1.58 to 1.58.
Expected goals
The match in goals
Goal expectations fitted to the final probabilities (1X2 and over/under 2.5), then turned into markets that are consistent with one another. The fair price has no margin: any higher price is value.
Most likely correct scores
Each cell shows the probability of that score (rows NFO, columns COV). Beyond 5 goals per team: 1.3%.
Expected goals
Expected total: 2.9 goalsDerived markets
| Market | Probability | Fair odds |
|---|---|---|
| Over 1.5 goals | 79% | 1.26 |
| Over 2.5 goals | 54% | 1.85 |
| Under 2.5 goals | 46% | 2.18 |
| Over 3.5 goals | 32% | 3.13 |
| Both teams to score | 52% | 1.92 |
| NFO keep a clean sheet | 41% | 2.42 |
| COV keep a clean sheet | 14% | 7.09 |
| NFO win by 2+ goals | 38% | 2.63 |
| COV win by 2+ goals | 5.2% | 19.23 |
Market consensus versus team model
The corrected consensus is our reference probability. The team model (goals and shots on target, time weighted) is a second opinion.
5-point gap on draw: the model is more optimistic than the market. Across 4,806 tested matches, following the model against the market lost money. Read it as a lead for analysis, not as a bet.
Over / under 2.5 goals
| Market | Probability | Fair odds | Best odds | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Over 2.5 goals | 54% | 1.86 | 1.80 | -3,1 % |
| Under 2.5 goals | 46% | 2.17 | 2.05 | -5,3 % |
Shots on target per game
- Nottingham Forest
- 3.5 for3.0 against
- Coventry
- 3.3 for4.8 against
Data
Match statistics
The data used by the model. Unavailable data is shown as such, never replaced by an estimate.
Recent form
Key: W win, D draw, L loss. Last five matches, oldest to most recent.
Home / Away
- Nottingham Forest
- 0W 1D 1L at home
- Coventry
- 0W 0D 2L away
Head-to-head
Data unavailable
Goals scored
Average per match.
Goals conceded
Average per match.
Expected goals (xG)
Data unavailable
Average xG per match.
Absentees
Data not available
AI analysis
What the model says
Prono Data probabilities: 61% for Nottingham Forest, 23% for the draw, 16% for Coventry. They come from the bookmaker consensus with the margin removed and the favourite / longshot bias corrected: the best calibrated reference in our tests. Expected goals: 2.0 for Nottingham Forest, 0.9 for Coventry. Most likely scores: 1-1 (12%), 2-0 (11%), 2-1 (10%). Over 2.5 goals at 54%, both teams to score at 52%. As a second opinion, our team model (goals and shots on target, time weighted) gives 57% / 28% / 15%. It differs from the market by 5 points on the draw (more optimistic). Historically, when the two disagree, the market is right more often: we show it as a signal worth digging into, not as a bet. Recent form: Nottingham Forest D-L-D-D-W, 1.0 scored and 1.0 conceded per game, 3.5 shots on target; Coventry L-L-L-L, 0.0 scored and 2.5 conceded, 3.3 shots on target. No price beats the fair price by at least 2.5%: no tracked bet on this match. The favourite is a Nottingham Forest win. Caution: at least one team has few observed matches, so the model's second opinion is fragile.
Scenarios
Possible scenarios
- 1
Most likely scenario (61%): Nottingham Forest control the game and win, in an open match with goals at both ends.
- 2
Draw scenario (23%): the two sides cancel each other out; an outcome not to dismiss.
- 3
Upset scenario (16%): Coventry capitalise on an early goal or a weak spell from Nottingham Forest.
Compute my stake for this bet
The calculator will be pre-filled with odds of 1.60 and the 61 % probability of outcome 1 · NFO. You set your bankroll and strategy.
Analyses are for information only and do not guarantee any result.
Sports betting involves a risk of financial loss. For adults only.
View the public track record of all settled analyses.