Argentinos Juniors vs Central Cordoba Santiago Prediction — Model Probabilities
Edge (pp): green = we see more probability than the market · gold = essentially even (±0.5pp) · red = we see less. The Decision above outranks any single row: the engine backs well-supported edges, not merely big ones.
Argentinos Juniors v Central Cordoba Santiago — Team-Based Signals
Argentinos Juniors vs Central Cordoba Santiago Head-to-Head — Last 5 Meetings
1-0
HT 1-0
Argentinos Juniors
ARJ
1-2
HT 0-0
Argentinos Juniors
ARJ
1-1
HT 0-1
Central Cordoba Santiago
ARJ
0-0
HT 0-0
Central Cordoba Santiago
ARJ
3-1
HT 0-0
Central Cordoba Santiago
ARJ
Argentinos Juniors 2-1 Central Cordoba Santiago — Actual Match Statistics
Argentinos Juniors nicked a narrow win over Central Cordoba Santiago 2-1. Half-time: 1-0.
As our pre-match numbers suggested, our model had Argentinos Juniors as the likeliest winner at 57%, and the 2-1 landed on that lead. The goals read — under 2.5 goals (55%), no to both teams scoring (58%) — went the other way, though.
On the day, Argentinos Juniors had 50% of the ball to Central Cordoba Santiago's 50%, shots finished 12-6, expected goals 0.49 to 0.20.
For context: across their last 5 meetings in our records, Argentinos Juniors had the better of it with 2 wins, 2 drawn. Those games averaged 1.20 goals for Argentinos Juniors and 0.80 for Central Cordoba Santiago.
What was the final score of Argentinos Juniors vs Central Cordoba Santiago?
Argentinos Juniors 2-1 Central Cordoba Santiago in the Argentina - Premier League on 13/06/2024. The analysis above shows what our model predicted before kick-off next to what actually happened.
What did the model predict for Argentinos Juniors vs Central Cordoba Santiago?
Before kick-off our model rated a Argentinos Juniors win the most likely single outcome at about 57%, with the full match-result split Argentinos Juniors 57%, draw 23%, Central Cordoba Santiago 19%. The final score 2-1 confirmed our model's pre-match leads on Match Result (Argentinos Juniors) — while Under 2.5, BTTS No went the other way.