Picks vs outcomes
Every prediction this model has made that has since been graded against an official result. Paper-only and educational — nothing here is a pick or a recommendation to wager, and no stake is filled in anywhere on this site.
How the model's picks actually turned out
Player-prop projections: the model's over/under lean against the book's line, graded from the official box score.
38519 graded picks. A hit rate is still not proof a model beats a price — that requires a preregistered comparison against the closing line, which is tracked separately per sport.
A model-performance record, independent of the paper bankroll. It shares no row with the settled money record on /results.
| Date | Event | Model said | What happened | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-05 | Ryan Gusto · MIA v CHC | Under 3.5 · 66.5% | 5 | MISS |
| 2026-09-05 | Javier Assad · CHC v MIA | Under 3.5 · 84.1% | 3 | HIT |
| 2026-09-05 | Pete Crow-Armstrong · CHC v MIA | Over 1.5 · 37.9% | 1 | MISS |
| 2026-09-05 | Nico Hoerner · CHC v MIA | Over 0.5 · 72.2% | 3 | HIT |
| 2026-09-05 | Otto Lopez · MIA v CHC | Over 0.5 · 72.1% | 1 | HIT |
| 2026-09-05 | Alex Bregman · CHC v MIA | Over 0.5 · 77.8% | 0 | MISS |
| 2026-09-05 | Seiya Suzuki · CHC v MIA | Over 0.5 · 72.8% | 1 | HIT |
| 2026-09-05 | Javier Sanoja · MIA v CHC | Over 0.5 · 77.1% | 1 | HIT |
| 2026-09-05 | Michael Busch · CHC v MIA | Under 0.5 · 38.4% | 2 | MISS |
| 2026-09-05 | Ian Happ · CHC v MIA | Over 0.5 · 63.8% | 2 | HIT |
| 2026-09-05 | Agustín Ramírez · MIA v CHC | Under 0.5 · 44.9% | 0 | HIT |
| 2026-09-05 | Griffin Conine · MIA v CHC | Under 0.5 · 42.1% | 1 | MISS |
| 2026-09-05 | Jakob Marsee · MIA v CHC | Over 0.5 · 57.0% | 0 | MISS |
| 2026-09-05 | Michael Conforto · CHC v MIA | Over 0.5 · 57.9% | 2 | HIT |
| 2026-09-05 | Miguel Amaya · CHC v MIA | Under 0.5 · 49.1% | 2 | MISS |
| 2026-09-05 | Owen Caissie · MIA v CHC | Over 0.5 · 50.5% | 0 | MISS |
| 2026-09-05 | Joe Mack · MIA v CHC | Over 0.5 · 57.0% | 0 | MISS |
| 2026-09-05 | Graham Pauley · MIA v CHC | Over 0.5 · 55.6% | 0 | MISS |
| 2026-09-05 | Pete Crow-Armstrong · CHC v MIA | Over 1.5 · 72.8% | 2 | HIT |
| 2026-09-05 | Alex Bregman · CHC v MIA | Over 1.5 · 71.5% | 0 | MISS |
| 2026-09-05 | Seiya Suzuki · CHC v MIA | Over 1.5 · 68.0% | 2 | HIT |
| 2026-09-05 | Nico Hoerner · CHC v MIA | Over 1.5 · 57.0% | 4 | HIT |
| 2026-09-05 | Otto Lopez · MIA v CHC | Over 1.5 · 59.9% | 2 | HIT |
| 2026-09-05 | Michael Busch · CHC v MIA | Over 1.5 · 53.9% | 4 | HIT |
| 2026-09-05 | Javier Sanoja · MIA v CHC | Over 1.5 · 59.1% | 2 | HIT |
| 2026-09-05 | Ian Happ · CHC v MIA | Over 1.5 · 57.2% | 4 | HIT |
| 2026-09-05 | Griffin Conine · MIA v CHC | Over 1.5 · 46.4% | 5 | HIT |
| 2026-09-05 | Agustín Ramírez · MIA v CHC | Over 1.5 · 45.9% | 0 | MISS |
| 2026-09-05 | Jakob Marsee · MIA v CHC | Over 1.5 · 46.9% | 0 | MISS |
| 2026-09-05 | Michael Conforto · CHC v MIA | Over 1.5 · 51.4% | 5 | HIT |
| 2026-09-05 | Miguel Amaya · CHC v MIA | Over 0.5 · 64.6% | 4 | HIT |
| 2026-09-05 | Joe Mack · MIA v CHC | Over 0.5 · 67.6% | 1 | HIT |
| 2026-09-05 | Owen Caissie · MIA v CHC | Over 0.5 · 62.2% | 1 | HIT |
| 2026-09-05 | Graham Pauley · MIA v CHC | Over 0.5 · 70.3% | 0 | MISS |
| 2026-09-05 | Pete Crow-Armstrong · CHC v MIA | Over 1.5 · 68.7% | 1 | MISS |
| 2026-09-05 | Seiya Suzuki · CHC v MIA | Over 1.5 · 58.6% | 1 | MISS |
| 2026-09-05 | Otto Lopez · MIA v CHC | Over 1.5 · 51.8% | 2 | HIT |
| 2026-09-05 | Alex Bregman · CHC v MIA | Over 1.5 · 67.9% | 0 | MISS |
| 2026-09-05 | Michael Busch · CHC v MIA | Over 1.5 · 50.0% | 3 | HIT |
| 2026-09-05 | Javier Sanoja · MIA v CHC | Over 1.5 · 55.0% | 1 | MISS |
| 2026-09-05 | Nico Hoerner · CHC v MIA | Over 1.5 · 47.7% | 3 | HIT |
| 2026-09-05 | Bo Bichette · NYM v SF | Under 1.5 · 70.0% | 0 | HIT |
| 2026-09-05 | Francisco Lindor · NYM v SF | Over 0.5 · 67.9% | 0 | MISS |
| 2026-09-05 | Carson Benge · NYM v SF | Over 0.5 · 72.7% | 0 | MISS |
| 2026-09-05 | Jung Hoo Lee · SF v NYM | Under 0.5 · 37.8% | — | VOID |
| 2026-09-05 | Juan Soto · NYM v SF | Under 0.5 · 37.1% | 0 | HIT |
| 2026-09-05 | Bryce Eldridge · SF v NYM | Over 0.5 · 77.7% | 1 | HIT |
| 2026-09-05 | Jared Young · NYM v SF | Over 0.5 · 61.6% | 2 | HIT |
| 2026-09-05 | Rafael Devers · SF v NYM | Over 0.5 · 81.2% | 2 | HIT |
| 2026-09-05 | A.J. Ewing · NYM v SF | Over 0.5 · 62.1% | 1 | HIT |
| 2026-09-05 | Jonah Cox · SF v NYM | Over 0.5 · 65.0% | 1 | HIT |
| 2026-09-05 | Marcus Semien · NYM v SF | Over 0.5 · 62.6% | 1 | HIT |
| 2026-09-05 | Turner Hill · SF v NYM | Over 0.5 · 69.6% | 0 | MISS |
| 2026-09-05 | Francisco Alvarez · NYM v SF | Over 0.5 · 58.8% | 0 | MISS |
| 2026-09-05 | Andrew Knizner · SF v NYM | Under 0.5 · 48.7% | 0 | HIT |
| 2026-09-05 | Christian Koss · SF v NYM | Over 0.5 · 54.7% | 2 | HIT |
| 2026-09-05 | Osleivis Basabe · SF v NYM | Over 0.5 · 54.7% | 1 | HIT |
| 2026-09-05 | Brett Baty · NYM v SF | Over 0.5 · 58.8% | 1 | HIT |
| 2026-09-05 | Shay Whitcomb · SF v NYM | Under 0.5 · 57.9% | 1 | MISS |
| 2026-09-05 | Francisco Lindor · NYM v SF | Over 1.5 · 62.5% | 0 | MISS |
Showing the 60 most recent of 38,519 graded.
A hit rate is not a claim about a sportsbook. Being right more often than not and being right more often than the posted price implies are different things, and only the second would say anything about a market. That comparison is tracked separately for each sport and has cleared nothing here.
Game predictions
Game-level predictions — winner, total and run line from the full-game simulation — graded against official StatsAPI finals, from the newest artifact revision that pre-dates each game's first pitch.
| Market | Graded | Record | Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Winner (moneyline) | 505 | 254–251 | 50.3% |
| Total (over/under) | 504 | 240–242–22 pushes | 49.8% |
| Run line | 505 | 319–186 | 63.2% |
91% of graded run-line picks took the +1.5 side, whose base cover rate is close to this hit rate — and no market price is recorded for this family, so the percentage supports no claim against the market.
A model-performance record, separate from the 32,227-row player-prop record and from the settled money record: different questions, different denominators, never combined. Each row is graded from the newest prediction revision generated before that game's first pitch; 318 earlier game finals have no such pre-event artifact and are named as gaps rather than reconstructed.
