Main strength
A direct, compact view of numerical outputs.
Main limitation
Underlying model and probability calibration are unverified.
What we checked: a concrete example
Chicó vs Internacional de Bogotá — dated prediction/result table
Checked 7 November 2026 · Public pages and retrieved source snapshots · Check protocol
| Find a match | Observed The daily table includes named fixtures, outcome percentages and selection codes. Inspect primary page |
|---|---|
| Inspect the analysis | Observed The sampled Chicó–Internacional row gives an away selection and numerical columns rather than an authored match argument. Inspect primary page |
| Find earlier material | Observed Date links open separate 6 and 7 November table pages. Inspect primary page |
| Inspect results reporting | Observed, limited The sampled row retains the away selection beside a displayed 2–1 final score. No reconciled betting-return series was established. Inspect primary page |
Our assessment: A compact numerical overview with dated result visibility, but limited explanation of how the numbers are produced.
What appears in the public table?
The daily page displays outcome percentages, selections and odds in a fixture list. Dated navigation provides access to recent pages. [1] We describe these visible outputs without claiming that all future features are free or assigning a technical method that the available documentation does not establish.
What the percentages tell you
A percentage is a numerical estimate published by the service. It is not automatically a measured success rate. The useful question is how often similar estimates correspond to outcomes across a large, consistently recorded sample. We have not performed that calibration analysis or verified the inputs and formula behind the table.
What can be inspected after a match?
The dated 4 November page includes forecasts and final scores. [2] That supports an observation about archive presentation. It does not prove that the complete history is unchanged, that all forecasts were available at the recorded prices before kick-off, or that a betting strategy would have been profitable. We publish no historical accuracy or return figure.
What the checked example reveals
A losing outcome can remain inspectable beside the forecast, which is useful reporting evidence. The row is still not a complete statement of a bet: a selection code, quoted price and final score need a publication time, stake convention and settlement rules before they can support comparable returns. The table’s concise format serves scanning better than understanding a written football argument. See the dated four-task check and primary pages.
Usability and limits of the format
The table keeps many fixtures in one view and suits quick numerical comparison. It supplies little authored explanation of a specific forecast, so readers seeking the football argument should compare a written-preview service.
Why it is included and alternatives
Zulubet is included because its public numerical tables and dated results add a relevant format to the original comparison. It receives no special position or unsupported accuracy claim. Read Forebet for a service with an explicit published model description, or FootyStats for deeper historical football research. Consult our methodology before interpreting any website's percentages as proof of performance.
Editorial rating breakdown
Assessment dated 7 November 2026 · Based on the dated primary-source sample below.
| Verifiable results (30%) | 2/5 A dated sample retains forecasts and final scores. This confirms some historical visibility, but one dated page does not establish a complete auditable results series. [2] |
|---|---|
| Analysis and methodology (25%) | 1/5 Numerical outputs are visible, but a detailed explanation of their inputs, model and calibration was not established in the inspected sources. [1] |
| Free content (15%) | 4/5 The inspected public daily and dated tables provide free forecasts, probability columns and result information. [1] [2] |
| Coverage (10%) | 3/5 The sampled table covers multiple football fixtures with 1X2 probabilities and score information. Continuous league and market completeness has not been audited. [1] [2] |
| User experience (10%) | 2.5/5 · Estimated A comparable small-screen and keyboard-navigation assessment is still needed. No measured loading-speed or local-network test was performed. Neutral midpoint assumption; not a verified assessment of this feature. |
| Local relevance (10%) | 2.5/5 · Estimated A country-scoped assessment of domestic coverage, useful local context and access is incomplete. Country names or worldwide availability alone do not establish this criterion. Neutral midpoint assumption; not a verified assessment of this feature. |
Sensitivity to missing evidence: holding the assessed scores fixed, the total could range from 3.5 to 5.5/10 if the unverified criteria were all 0 or all 5. This is an assumption range, not a statistical confidence interval.
These are provisional editorial judgments about service features, not measured prediction accuracy or a betting-return forecast. How estimates and ranking work.
Sources and review date
Background primary sources were initially checked on 5 November 2026. The four-task check above records the newer 7 November 2026 observations and retrieval limits. Added sources explicitly identify their later check date. Dynamic content may change; this is not a paid-account or prediction-performance audit.
- Public daily prediction tableInitial check 5 November 2026
- Dated example with final scores, 4 November 2026Initial check 5 November 2026