Football Results & Model Review Saturday 3 October 2026: Hinoke's hat-trick, a run of Dutch draws and a model that got a mixed Saturday
Every so often a Saturday arrives to remind a goal model that football is not obliged to follow the script. Saturday 3 October 2026 was one of those days. We had 21 completed fixtures carrying pre-match predictions from our Dixon-Coles Poisson model, and the scorecard reads like a mid-table side's season: some real triumphs, some baffling slips, and a good deal of grumbling in between. The winner call was correct in 11 of 21 matches, which is a respectable afternoon's work but nothing to put on a banner.
The goal-market calls tell a more nuanced story. Our both-teams-to-score calls were correct 14 of 21 times, which was the strongest line on the day's report card. Over 2.5 goals came in at 11 of 21, matching the winner tally. In plain terms, the model was better at sensing that both sides would find the net than at picking who would walk away with the points, and several of our confident over 2.5 calls were left unrewarded by games that simply refused to open up.
It is worth keeping the long view in sight too. Our season-to-date winner accuracy across all leagues stands at 47%, and a single Saturday is a small sample against that backdrop. Below we go through six featured matches in detail, from Leyton Orient against Plymouth to Almere City against Volendam, with a full account of what we expected, what happened and where we were wrong. Then we sweep through the rest of the day's results. We will be candid throughout, because a model that only celebrates its hits is not worth reading.
League One (England)
Leyton Orient 0-2 Plymouth
Leyton Orient 0-2 Plymouth was the quietest sort of away win, at least on paper. The match report lists only two events, and both belong to the visitors. Aribim Pepple broke the deadlock in the 52nd minute, set up by Bradley Ibrahim, and Plymouth did not wait long before adding to it. Will Evans made it 0-2 in the 56th minute with Ronan Curtis providing the assist. After that, the key events list falls silent, and Plymouth held on to what they had built.
Our model had leaned towards the visitors before a ball was kicked. It gave Leyton Orient a 26% chance, the draw 24% and Plymouth 50%, with expected goals of 1.43 to 2.00 in the away side's favour. That is a clear but hardly overwhelming edge, the sort that says Plymouth were the likelier winners without ruling out much else. On the outcome, the model read the game in the right direction.
The winner call of Plymouth at 50% was a HIT, and we are glad to say so plainly. Plymouth won, and the pre-match lean was vindicated. It is a decent reminder that a call at 50% is not a promise. It is a statement that this was the single most likely result, and on this occasion the single most likely result arrived on schedule.
The goal markets were another matter entirely. Our most likely scoreline was 1-1, at 9%, and the game finished 0-2, so that one was off the mark. We also called both teams to score at 67%, and Leyton Orient never got on the scoresheet, which makes that a MISS. The same goes for over 2.5 goals, also at 67%: the match ended 0-2, and we called it wrongly. So the headline call was right, but both goal-market calls were wrong on a day when Plymouth kept it tidy.
Full match analysis, xG and correct-score grid →Eerste Divisie (Netherlands)
FC OSS 4-1 MVV
FC OSS 4-1 MVV was the afternoon's most one-sided scoreline and the day's best individual story. MVV struck first through Toni Vinogradac in the 27th minute, with Robert Klaasen supplying the pass, and for a while the visitors had the lead. Then Mauresmo Hinoke decided to take over the match. He equalised in the 39th minute, assisted by Justin Mathieu, and the home side were level at 1-1.
What followed after the restart was the sort of burst that makes statisticians reach for a cold drink. Hinoke scored again in the 51st minute, Mathieu once more the provider, to make it 2-1. In the 53rd minute he completed his hat-trick, this time with Franslyn Nsingi setting him up, and it was 3-1. Maurilio de Lannoy then added the fourth in the 76th minute, assisted by Jacey Pansa, to close out a 4-1 win. Hinoke finished with 3 goals.
Our model was firmly behind the hosts. It gave FC OSS a 60% chance, the draw 19% and MVV 21%, with expected goals of 2.39 to 1.38. The most likely scoreline we offered was 2-1, at 9%. The actual 4-1 was more emphatic than that, so we did not nail the exact score, but the shape of the match, a home win in which both sides scored, was what we had in mind.
This was one of the cleanest days for the model. The winner call of FC OSS at 60% was a HIT. Both teams to score, which we put at 68% and called yes, was also a HIT, as MVV got their goal. Over 2.5 goals, at 73% and called yes, was a HIT too. A full set of three correct calls is what we always hope for and rarely get, and Hinoke did the hard part for us.
Full match analysis, xG and correct-score grid →Eerste Divisie (Netherlands)
Vitesse 2-2 NAC Breda
Vitesse 2-2 NAC Breda was an entertaining draw that went back and forth, and it is the sort of match where the final scoreline hides a lot of drama. Naoufal Bannis opened the scoring for Vitesse in the 14th minute, set up by Filipe de Carvalho Ferreira, and the hosts led 1-0. NAC Breda replied in the 24th minute through Charles-Andreas Brym, with Kamal Sowah providing the assist, and the sides were level.
Then Sowah turned from creator to scorer. In the 32nd minute he put NAC Breda ahead at 1-2, and the visitors looked to be heading for the points. Vitesse had other ideas. Bannis struck again in the 87th minute to make it 2-2, which was a late reward for the hosts and denied NAC Breda what would have been a hard-earned win. The key events list shows no more goals after that, so the draw stood.
Our pre-match reading gave Vitesse the edge. The model had Vitesse win at 47%, the draw at 22% and NAC Breda win at 32%, with expected goals of 2.00 to 1.61. The most likely scoreline we gave was 1-1, at 9%. The expected goals pointed to a game with goals at both ends, and that part of the picture was sound, even if the actual result was a 2-2 draw rather than the 1-1 we named.
The winner call of Vitesse at 47% was a MISS, because the match ended as a draw. That is a fair reminder that a draw is never far away, even when the numbers lean towards one side. Elsewhere the news was better. Both teams to score, at 69% and called yes, was a HIT, and over 2.5 goals, at 70% and called yes, was also a HIT. So the goal markets stood up, and only the headline pick fell short.
Full match analysis, xG and correct-score grid →Eerste Divisie (Netherlands)
Waalwijk 1-1 Emmen
Waalwijk 1-1 Emmen was the sort of match that makes a model blush. Our numbers had been strongly in favour of the hosts, and the match delivered a draw. Waalwijk did get on the board in the 28th minute, when Jesse van de Haar scored with an assist from Ryan fage, and the early signs matched our expectations. After that, the key events list shows nothing more for a long stretch.
Emmen then levelled in the 61st minute. Bryan Van Hove scored, with Daan Lambers the provider, and that was the final goal of the afternoon. Waalwijk could not find the second that the model expected, and the match ended 1-1. A hosts-dominate story had become a share of the points, and the visitors will be quite content with how it turned out.
The size of our pre-match lean makes this one sting. We gave Waalwijk a 72% chance, the draw 13% and Emmen 15%, with expected goals of 3.56 to 1.71. Our most likely scoreline was 3-1, at 9%... or rather 7%, as the model put it, and the match finished 1-1. The model was expecting a hosts' goal flurry, and the match did not provide one.
The winner call of Waalwijk at 72% was a MISS, and it was the boldest miss of our featured matches. Over 2.5 goals, which we called yes at 90%, was a MISS as well, since the match produced a 1-1 draw. The one redeeming call was both teams to score, at 80% and called yes, which was a HIT because each side found the net. A strong lean on the home side and a very high goals call both failed, so this one goes in the notebook marked humbling.
Full match analysis, xG and correct-score grid →Eerste Divisie (Netherlands)
Den Bosch 1-1 Dordrecht
Den Bosch 1-1 Dordrecht was another Eerste Divisie draw, and this one had a late sting. For much of the match there was nothing to separate the sides on the scoresheet, and the key events list records the first goal only in the 55th minute. Senne Vugts put Dordrecht ahead then, with an assist from ayoub ouarghi, and the visitors led 0-1.
Den Bosch had to wait a good while for a reply, but they got one. In the 82nd minute Kevin Monzialo converted a penalty to make it 1-1, and that was the last goal of the match. A spot-kick equaliser is a fine way to rescue a point, and the hosts will take it, even if our model had been expecting more from them over the course of the afternoon.
We had Den Bosch as the likelier winners. The model gave them a 63% chance, the draw 18% and Dordrecht 20%, with expected goals of 2.57 to 1.41. Our most likely scoreline was 2-1, at 9%. The actual result was a 1-1 draw, so we had the right idea of both sides scoring but the wrong idea of how the match would end.
The winner call of Den Bosch at 63% was a MISS, as the match was drawn. Over 2.5 goals, at 76% and called yes, was also a MISS, because the match finished 1-1. Both teams to score, at 70% and called yes, was a HIT, since Dordrecht and Den Bosch each scored. It was a familiar pattern on the day: we saw the shape of the contest, but the home side did not collect the points we thought they would.
Full match analysis, xG and correct-score grid →Eerste Divisie (Netherlands)
Almere City FC 1-0 FC Volendam
Almere City FC 1-0 FC Volendam was the tightest result of our featured matches, decided by a single goal. The key events list is brief. Enzo Cornelisse scored in the 37th minute, set up by Milan de Haan, and that was the only goal of the game. Almere City FC had their lead and kept it, and the rest of the match passed without any further scoring.
It was a different type of win from the ones our model tends to picture. We had expected a bigger home advantage and more goals, with expected goals of 2.58 to 1.10 and a most likely scoreline of 2-1, at 9%. The match was a much more modest affair, with just the lone goal separating the sides. The home side got the points, but our expected goals total was well above what was delivered.
On the outcome, though, the model was right. We gave Almere City FC a 69% chance, the draw 17% and FC Volendam 14%, and the hosts won. The winner call of Almere City FC at 69% was a HIT. It is a good example of a call that lands without the details falling into place, since the score was nowhere near our predicted 2-1.
The goal markets did not fare as well. Both teams to score, which we put at 62% and called yes, was a MISS, because FC Volendam did not score. Over 2.5 goals, at 71% and called yes, was also a MISS, as the match finished 1-0. So we collected the winner call but missed the two goal markets, which is a fair summary of the day: the direction was correct, but the model was too generous about how many goals there would be.
Full match analysis, xG and correct-score grid →Elsewhere
Beyond the six featured matches, the rest of the card was a wide spread of results across England, Ukraine, Canada, the Netherlands and Brazil. In the Premier League in Ukraine, Veres Rivne beat Kudrivka 2-1, a HIT for our Veres Rivne call at 44%. In League Two, Chesterfield won 4-2 against Tranmere, Accrington ST beat Cheltenham 2-0, Crewe took a 3-1 win over Bristol Rovers, Rochdale edged Swindon Town 1-0 and Salford City beat Fleetwood Town 1-0, and each of those home-win calls was a HIT, with Salford City called at only 38% and Accrington ST at 36%. In the Canadian Premier League, York United beat Cavalry FC 3-1, and in Brazil's Serie A, Atletico-MG won 1-0 against RB Bragantino, both HITs.
The misses were just as plentiful, and they should be recorded with the same honesty. In League One, Burton Albion lost 1-3 to Huddersfield after we had called a Burton Albion win at 43%, and Reading drew 1-1 with Bradford after we leaned to Reading at 46%. In League Two, Exeter City won 1-0 against Rotherham when we had called the draw at 39%, Gillingham and Newport County played out a 0-0 draw against our Gillingham call at 50%, and Grimsby lost 1-2 to Shrewsbury, the sharpest miss of that group, with Grimsby called at 67%. In the Eerste Divisie, FC Eindhoven drew 2-2 with De Graafschap against our call at 45%, and in Canada, Forge and HFX Wanderers FC shared a 3-3 draw despite our Forge call at 49%. Draws did a great deal of damage to our winner column.
- Veres Rivne 2-1 Kudrivka · called Veres Rivne win 44% · HIT
- Chesterfield 4-2 Tranmere · called Chesterfield win 47% · HIT
- Burton Albion 1-3 Huddersfield · called Burton Albion win 43% · MISS
- Reading 1-1 Bradford · called Reading win 46% · MISS
- Accrington ST 2-0 Cheltenham · called Accrington ST win 36% · HIT
- Crewe 3-1 Bristol Rovers · called Crewe win 44% · HIT
- Exeter City 1-0 Rotherham · called draw 39% · MISS
- Gillingham 0-0 Newport County · called Gillingham win 50% · MISS
- Grimsby 1-2 Shrewsbury · called Grimsby win 67% · MISS
- Rochdale 1-0 Swindon Town · called Rochdale win 54% · HIT
- Salford City 1-0 Fleetwood Town · called Salford City win 38% · HIT
- York United 3-1 Cavalry FC · called York United win 49% · HIT
- FC Eindhoven 2-2 De Graafschap · called FC Eindhoven win 45% · MISS
- Forge 3-3 HFX Wanderers FC · called Forge win 49% · MISS
- Atletico-MG 1-0 RB Bragantino · called Atletico-MG win 46% · HIT
So what does Saturday 3 October 2026 tell us? Our winner calls landed 11 of 21 times, both-teams-to-score was the strongest line at 14 of 21, and over 2.5 goals matched the winner tally at 11 of 21. The model read the direction of play well in many games and was caught out where draws and tight low-scoring results arrived, most obviously in Waalwijk against Emmen, where a strong lean met a 1-1 finish. A season-to-date winner accuracy of 47% across all leagues is the number to judge us by, not a single Saturday, and we will keep reporting it whichever way the day goes. If you want the full workings behind every pick, head to the match pages on Fixture360 for the probabilities, expected goals and predicted scorelines, and visit our model accuracy record to see how we are doing, warts and all.
Explore the markets
This post was written with AI assistance from Fixture360's own model data — every figure, score and event comes from our database, and the stat cards are generated directly from it. Predictions are statistical estimates for entertainment and information only, not betting advice. Please gamble responsibly (18+).