Plaza Colonia vs Liverpool FC (Montevideo) 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.
Plaza Colonia v Liverpool FC (Montevideo) — Team-Based Signals
Plaza Colonia vs Liverpool FC (Montevideo) Head-to-Head — Last 6 Meetings
0-0
HT 0-0
Liverpool FC (Montevideo)
URU
2-2
HT 1-2
Plaza Colonia
URU
3-1
HT 1-0
Plaza Colonia
URU
1-3
HT 1-2
Liverpool FC (Montevideo)
URU
1-0
HT 1-0
Plaza Colonia
URU
Plaza Colonia 1-1 Liverpool FC (Montevideo) — Actual Match Statistics
Plaza Colonia and Liverpool FC (Montevideo) shared the points in a 1-1 draw. It was 1-0 at half-time, meaning the result turned around in the second half.
Our pre-match lean was Liverpool FC (Montevideo) 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 (59%) landed while no to both teams scoring (55%) missed.
On the day, Plaza Colonia had 32% of the ball to Liverpool FC (Montevideo)'s 68%, shots finished 8-10.
Coming into the game, across their last 6 meetings in our records, Liverpool FC (Montevideo) led the recent series with 4 wins, 2 drawn. Those games averaged 0.67 goals for Plaza Colonia and 1.67 for Liverpool FC (Montevideo).
What was the final score of Plaza Colonia vs Liverpool FC (Montevideo)?
Plaza Colonia 1-1 Liverpool FC (Montevideo) in the Uruguay - Premier League on 31/05/2025. The analysis above shows what our model predicted before kick-off next to what actually happened.
What did the model predict for Plaza Colonia vs Liverpool FC (Montevideo)?
Before kick-off our model rated an Liverpool FC (Montevideo) win the most likely single outcome at about 41%, with the full match-result split Plaza Colonia 29%, draw 31%, Liverpool FC (Montevideo) 41%. The final score 1-1 confirmed our model's pre-match leads on Under 2.5 — while Match Result (Liverpool FC (Montevideo)), BTTS No went the other way.