Gimnastica Torrelavega vs Real Aviles Prediction — Model Probabilities
The bookmaker priced every market fairly — no dependable value at these odds, so skipping is the disciplined play.
Our Pick is our best estimate of the outcome; a value flag is a separate, rarer judgement about the price.
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.
Gimnastica Torrelavega v Real Aviles — Team-Based Signals
Gimnastica Torrelavega vs Real Aviles Head-to-Head — Last 3 Meetings
0-1
HT 0-1
Gimnastica Torrelavega
İS4
1-1
HT 1-1
Real Aviles
İS4
3-0
HT 1-0
Gimnastica Torrelavega
İS4
Gimnastica Torrelavega 1-1 Real Aviles — Actual Match Statistics
Gimnastica Torrelavega and Real Aviles shared the points in a 1-1 draw. Half-time: 0-0.
Our pre-match lean was Gimnastica Torrelavega at 41%, but a lead that slim is closer to a coin-flip than a call — and it fell the other way. On goals, under 2.5 goals (58%) landed while no to both teams scoring (59%) missed.
On the day, Gimnastica Torrelavega had 56% of the ball to Real Aviles's 44%, shots finished 12-7.
Coming into the game, across their last 3 meetings in our records, honours were even at 1 apiece, 1 drawn. Those games averaged 0.67 goals for Gimnastica Torrelavega and 1.33 for Real Aviles.
What was the final score of Gimnastica Torrelavega vs Real Aviles?
Gimnastica Torrelavega 1-1 Real Aviles in the Spain - 2nd Division RFEF on 28/01/2024. The analysis above shows what our model predicted before kick-off next to what actually happened.
What did the model predict for Gimnastica Torrelavega vs Real Aviles?
Before kick-off our model rated a Gimnastica Torrelavega win the most likely single outcome at about 41%, with the full match-result split Gimnastica Torrelavega 41%, draw 25%, Real Aviles 34%. The final score 1-1 confirmed our model's pre-match leads on Under 2.5 — while Match Result (Gimnastica Torrelavega), BTTS No went the other way.