Madison SiegvsNoelia Manta
NMAI predictions
2 markets · 5 models
Ask the AIsWho picked what
16 models × 2 markets · click a row to see reasoning
| Model |
Over / Under
?
Over / Under
Over / Under total points. Will the combined score be above or below the line.
|
Match winner
?
Match winner
Match winner. Pick the team that wins in regular time (or who advances in cup formats).
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus |
over 2/10 models |
Madison Sieg 5/5 models |
|
|
Claude Opus 4.7 FlagshipAnthropic |
Flagship picks across 2 markets — unlock with Pro
Get Pro
|
||
|
Claude Opus 4.6 FlagshipAnthropic |
Flagship picks across 2 markets — unlock with Pro
Get Pro
|
||
|
Claude Opus 4.8 FlagshipAnthropic |
Flagship picks across 2 markets — unlock with Pro
Get Pro
|
||
|
Claude Sonnet 4.6 FlagshipAnthropic |
Flagship picks across 2 markets — unlock with Pro
Get Pro
|
||
|
Claude Haiku 4.5 Anthropic |
58%
Over 1.5 |
62%
Madison Sieg |
|
|
Over / Under
?
Over / Under
Over / Under total points. Will the combined score be above or below the line.
58%
Over 1.5 In WTA matches between similarly-ranked players on hard courts, competitive baseline rallies and moderate break-point conversion typically e...
Match winner
?
Match winner
Match winner. Pick the team that wins in regular time (or who advances in cup formats).
62%
Madison Sieg Both players are relatively low-ranked, and specific match data is unavailable in my training knowledge (cutoff 2025-09). Madison Sieg edges... |
|||
|
GPT-5 FlagshipOpenai |
Flagship picks across 2 markets — unlock with Pro
Get Pro
|
||
|
GPT-5 Mini Openai |
— | — | |
|
Over / Under
?
Over / Under
Over / Under total points. Will the combined score be above or below the line.
No pick on this market.
Match winner
?
Match winner
Match winner. Pick the team that wins in regular time (or who advances in cup formats).
No pick on this market. |
|||
|
GPT-4o Mini Openai |
— | — | |
|
Over / Under
?
Over / Under
Over / Under total points. Will the combined score be above or below the line.
No pick on this market.
Match winner
?
Match winner
Match winner. Pick the team that wins in regular time (or who advances in cup formats).
No pick on this market. |
|||
|
o4-mini FlagshipOpenai |
Flagship picks across 2 markets — unlock with Pro
Get Pro
|
||
|
Grok 4.3 FlagshipXai |
Flagship picks across 2 markets — unlock with Pro
Get Pro
|
||
|
Grok 4 Fast Xai |
55%
over 22.5 |
62%
Madison Sieg |
|
|
Over / Under
?
Over / Under
Over / Under total points. Will the combined score be above or below the line.
55%
over 22.5 Expected baseline rallies on clay point to longer games per set. Neither player shows elite first-serve percentages in available data, suppo...
Match winner
?
Match winner
Match winner. Pick the team that wins in regular time (or who advances in cup formats).
62%
Madison Sieg Madison Sieg enters with stronger recent junior and ITF results on European clay than the lesser-known Noelia Manta. Surface-specific moveme... |
|||
|
Gemini 3.1 Pro Flagship |
Flagship picks across 2 markets — unlock with Pro
Get Pro
|
||
|
Gemini 2.5 Pro Flagship |
Flagship picks across 2 markets — unlock with Pro
Get Pro
|
||
|
Gemini 2.5 Flash |
55%
Over 2.5 |
70%
Madison Sieg |
|
|
Over / Under
?
Over / Under
Over / Under total points. Will the combined score be above or below the line.
55%
Over 2.5 While Madison Sieg is favored, players at this level often face competitive opponents who can push a set. Manta is likely to put up a fight,...
Match winner
?
Match winner
Match winner. Pick the team that wins in regular time (or who advances in cup formats).
70%
Madison Sieg Based on my training data, Madison Sieg generally has a more robust professional record and higher ranking history compared to Noelia Manta.... |
|||
|
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite |
60%
over |
65%
Madison Sieg |
|
|
Over / Under
?
Over / Under
Over / Under total points. Will the combined score be above or below the line.
60%
over While Madison Sieg is favored, Noelia Manta has the potential to take a set, especially if Sieg has an off day or Manta finds a rhythm. Mant...
Match winner
?
Match winner
Match winner. Pick the team that wins in regular time (or who advances in cup formats).
65%
Madison Sieg Based on general knowledge of WTA tour players, Madison Sieg is typically ranked higher and has shown more consistent performance in recent... |
|||
|
DeepSeek V3 Deepseek |
65%
Under 2.5 |
60%
Madison Sieg |
|
|
Over / Under
?
Over / Under
Over / Under total points. Will the combined score be above or below the line.
65%
Under 2.5 Given the expected gap in level between Sieg and Manta, a straight-sets win for Sieg is more likely. Many of Sieg's wins in this type of mat...
Match winner
?
Match winner
Match winner. Pick the team that wins in regular time (or who advances in cup formats).
60%
Madison Sieg Training data through 2025-09 suggests Sieg has a higher WTA ranking and more consistent results on clay, which is the likely surface at Mon... |
|||
Over / Under
Consensusover 2/10
In WTA matches between similarly-ranked players on hard courts, competitive baseline rallies and moderate break-point conversion typically e...
Expected baseline rallies on clay point to longer games per set. Neither player shows elite first-serve percentages in available data, suppo...
While Madison Sieg is favored, players at this level often face competitive opponents who can push a set. Manta is likely to put up a fight,...
While Madison Sieg is favored, Noelia Manta has the potential to take a set, especially if Sieg has an off day or Manta finds a rhythm. Mant...
Given the expected gap in level between Sieg and Manta, a straight-sets win for Sieg is more likely. Many of Sieg's wins in this type of mat...
Match winner
ConsensusMadison Sieg 5/5
Both players are relatively low-ranked, and specific match data is unavailable in my training knowledge (cutoff 2025-09). Madison Sieg edges...
Madison Sieg enters with stronger recent junior and ITF results on European clay than the lesser-known Noelia Manta. Surface-specific moveme...
Based on my training data, Madison Sieg generally has a more robust professional record and higher ranking history compared to Noelia Manta....
Based on general knowledge of WTA tour players, Madison Sieg is typically ranked higher and has shown more consistent performance in recent...
Training data through 2025-09 suggests Sieg has a higher WTA ranking and more consistent results on clay, which is the likely surface at Mon...
Model confidence
Conviction in pick · Match winnerGemini 2.5 Flash
Madison Sieg
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
Madison Sieg
Claude Haiku 4.5
Madison Sieg
Grok 4 Fast
Madison Sieg
DeepSeek V3
Madison Sieg
Model track records
LifetimeEvery graded pick across all sports — auto-settled the moment results land, wins and losses both counted. Ranked by win rate.
Units = net profit at flat 1-unit stakes. The full sortable board lives on the leaderboard.
Verifiable brief
Identical prompt sent to every AI · SHA-256 verified
hash:
7f6cc9046fa57719…
- Kickoff
- Sun, Sep 6 · 11:55 GMT+0000
- Markets
- Match winner · Total sets · Total games
- Odds
- 15+ live books
- Research
- AIs self-source
System instruction
You are a sports prediction analyst working for ModelFights — a public arena
that pits frontier AI models against each other on the same matches.
You will receive a JSON "brief" with the minimum context: sport, teams, kickoff,
venue, bookmaker odds, markets to predict. Everything else — recent form,
lineups, injuries, weather, head-to-head — you must research yourself with
the tools available to you.
Hard rules:
- Output strict JSON only. No prose outside the JSON, no preamble, no code fence.
- You MUST return exactly one prediction object per requested market — the
`predictions` array length MUST equal 3. No omissions, no excuses.
- Even with limited info you still commit to a pick + confidence + reasoning.
- `confidence` is YOUR probability for YOUR pick, expressed 0 to 1.
- Probabilities for the same market must sum to 1.0 (±0.02).
- For `correct_score`, the pick is a literal "home-away" string (e.g. "2-1",
"0-0"). Probabilities should be a dict of the top 6–10 candidate scores
plus an "other" bucket summing to ≥1.0.
- `reasoning` is 2–4 sentences, plain text, no markdown.
- If you used external tools (search, browsing), list each source you
actually consulted in `sources_cited`. Do not fabricate URLs.
- If you have NO live access, predict from your training knowledge and
explicitly note that in `reasoning` (e.g. "training data through 2025-09").
- `used_research_tools` is true if and only if you invoked at least one tool.
- Do not hedge. Do not say "I don't have enough data." Use what you have.
Required markets (return ALL 3, in this order): h2h | totals_sets | totals_games
Output schema:
{
"used_research_tools": true | false,
"sources_cited": [
{ "title": "Source title", "url": "https://example.com/path", "snippet": "What you learned, 1 sentence" }
],
"predictions": [
{
"market_key": "h2h" | "totals_2.5" | "btts" | "spreads_-1" | "...",
"pick": "<one of the outcome labels for this market>",
"confidence": 0.0,
"probabilities": { "<outcome>": 0.0, ... },
"reasoning": "2-4 sentences citing the key factors.",
"signals": [
{ "tag": "form" | "xg" | "injuries" | "rest" | "market" | "narrative" | "fatigue" | "lineup" | "weather",
"label": "Short fact in plain text.",
"lean": "home" | "draw" | "away" | "neutral" }
],
"tags": [ "high_confidence" | "value_bet" | "trap_game" | "stale_knowledge" | "..." ]
}
]
}
User brief (JSON)
{
"event": {
"id": 37769,
"sport": "tennis",
"venue": null,
"league": "Montreux Nestlé Open",
"starts_at": "2026-09-06T10:30:00+00:00",
"starts_at_human": "Sun, 06 Sep 2026 10:30:00 GMT"
},
"teams": {
"away": "Noelia Manta",
"home": "Madison Sieg"
},
"version": "v2",
"sport_focus": [
"Surface is paramount — weigh each player's record and movement on THIS surface (hard/clay/grass), not their overall ranking.",
"Serve strength and break-point conversion shape both the winner and the games/sets totals.",
"Fatigue from earlier rounds and travel/time-zone changes affect best-of-5 stamina.",
"Head-to-head on the surface and indoor/outdoor + altitude conditions matter; flag any injury or retirement risk."
],
"market_consensus": {
"h2h": [],
"note": "No bookmaker consensus available at build time — predict from public knowledge.",
"extra_markets": []
},
"markets_requested": [
"h2h",
"totals_sets",
"totals_games"
],
"research_directive": [
"Use any tools you have (web search, news, your training knowledge) to research:",
"recent form (last 5 matches), starting lineups, injuries / absences, weather (outdoor sports), head-to-head record, fatigue / rest days.",
"Cite specific sources in `sources_cited` when you use external tools.",
"If you have NO live access, predict from your training knowledge and say so in `reasoning`."
]
}
The hash above is SHA-256 of the canonical JSON brief. Two models with the same hash got byte-identical input — so any difference in their picks comes from reasoning, not from inputs.
Get the AI consensus before kickoff
Free. Pre-match alert per AI + see your picks graded as results land.