Championship, game week 5 — UK time
Your appraisal — and now the market.
Wolverhampton Wanderers is new to this division, so the rank comparison rests on less than a shared season. +1.41 points a game is the venue form gap, in Birmingham City's favour: Birmingham City takes 1.84 a game at home over the last two seasons, Wolverhampton Wanderers 0.43 away. Birmingham City scores heaviest in the 76-90+ spell and concedes heaviest in 31-45+; Wolverhampton Wanderers scores heaviest in 76-90+ and concedes heaviest in 31-45+. Averaging the two sides' own rates: over 2.5 goals in 48% of their games, both teams scoring in 54%, and a two-goal lead for one side or the other in 44%. On the record there is no strong lean either way on goals.
If the pattern holds -- and a pattern is a shape, not a promise: Birmingham City lands the first blow more often (24 of 50 to 10 of 42); when a lead builds towards 2UP it is more often Birmingham City's -- two goals clear in 10 of 50, against 4 of 42; Birmingham City finds its goals latest of all -- 12 of its 62 after the 75th; Wolverhampton Wanderers finds its goals latest of all -- 10 of its 38 after the 75th.
That read is built from the four steps, with no price in your ear -- the steps hold the evidence if you want the post-mortem. Now the market gets its say. Where it agrees with you it got there first; where it does not, your read and the crowd's disagree -- that is the conversation this tool exists to set up, and no measured edge backs either side of it.
The tissue is a plain goals model: Birmingham City 2.05 goals expected, Wolverhampton Wanderers 0.65, from two seasons of scoring rates (25 home matches and 21 away in the bank), shrunk toward the division average. It is calibrated against nothing and claims no edge -- it exists to make your view concrete before the market speaks. Note: Wolverhampton Wanderers's figures include last season in the Premier League, where goals came against different company.
Our tissue: Birmingham City 1.43 (70%), the draw 5.21 (19%), Wolverhampton Wanderers 9.38 (11%). The market's averages: 2.65, 3.30 and 2.40. The widest gap is on Birmingham City: the market offers 2.65 against our 1.43. If our figures are right that is value; nothing proves they are.
Our tissue: over 2.5 1.98 (50%), under 2.5 2.02 (50%). The market's averages: over 2.5 2.09, under 2.5 1.72. Close to our view -- no argument either way.
Our tissue: yes 2.41 (42%), no 1.71 (58%). The market's averages: yes 1.77, no 1.94. The market is shorter than our number on yes.
For the 2UP offer the fact that matters is a two-goal lead for one team or the other at ANY point, not the final margin. In Birmingham City's own 25 home matches read, one appeared in 9 (36%). In Wolverhampton Wanderers's own 21 away matches read, 11 (52%). Averaging the two sides' rates -- never pooling their matches -- that is 44% of games. No tissue is offered for this -- the played-match rates above are the honest read.
The market figures are the AVERAGE pre-match odds our feed records across books, not a best price -- a shaded average, so small gaps mean nothing.
Built 06:40 from matches completed before kick-off. The tissue is a model, not a measurement; the market figures are recorded averages, not offers. Nothing here is a tip or a selection.