Don't miss the next pick — Sign up free →
ModelFights

Saved matches

Stored on this device — no account needed.

Keep these saved across devices

Free account syncs your bookmarks + lets you join the prize comp.

Sign up free →
saved · tap to view
Get started
Basketball World Cup
Upcoming · in 79h 07m
Poland logo

PolandvsNetherlands

Netherlands logo
Chat with the AIs Ask why they picked — live
Kickoff Locked 24picks

Your call

Who wins? One tap, no signup.

AI predictions

Ask the AIs

Who picked what

16 models × 5 markets · click a row to see reasoning

Match winner

Consensus
Poland 4/6
Claude Opus 4.7 Claude Opus 4.7 Pro
Claude Opus 4.6 Claude Opus 4.6 Pro
Claude Opus 4.8 Claude Opus 4.8 Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.6 Claude Sonnet 4.6 Pro
Claude Haiku 4.5 Claude Haiku 4.5 62% Netherlands

The Netherlands has historically been stronger in international basketball competitions and typically fields deeper, more athletically versa...

Unlock reasoning · Pro
GPT-5 GPT-5 Pro
GPT-5 Mini GPT-5 Mini —
GPT-4o Mini GPT-4o Mini 75% Poland

Poland has been dominant in the qualifiers, maintaining an undefeated record with four wins, and is playing at home, which provides a signif...

Unlock reasoning · Pro
🔍 researched 4 sources cited
o4-mini o4-mini Pro
Grok 4.3 Grok 4.3 Pro
Grok 4 Fast Grok 4 Fast 62% Poland

Poland has historically been the stronger side against Netherlands in FIBA competition. Home-court edge adds another small advantage for the...

Unlock reasoning · Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro Gemini 3.1 Pro Pro
Gemini 2.5 Pro Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
Gemini 2.5 Flash Gemini 2.5 Flash 65% Poland

Based on historical performance data available in my training set up to September 2025, Poland generally fields a more competitive team and...

Unlock reasoning · Pro
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 53% Netherlands

Netherlands possesses a stronger historical performance in international basketball tournaments, suggesting an edge in this matchup. Poland'...

Unlock reasoning · Pro
DeepSeek V3 DeepSeek V3 65% Poland

Poland has a stronger basketball tradition and should have home-court advantage at the World Cup. Netherlands lacks depth in international b...

Unlock reasoning · Pro

Over / Under

Consensus
over 4/6
Claude Opus 4.7 Claude Opus 4.7 Pro
Claude Opus 4.6 Claude Opus 4.6 Pro
Claude Opus 4.8 Claude Opus 4.8 Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.6 Claude Sonnet 4.6 Pro
Claude Haiku 4.5 Claude Haiku 4.5 58% Under 170.5

World Cup basketball games typically feature deliberate, defensive-minded pace, especially in early rounds. Neither Poland nor the Netherlan...

Unlock reasoning · Pro
GPT-5 GPT-5 Pro
GPT-5 Mini GPT-5 Mini —
GPT-4o Mini GPT-4o Mini 65% over

Both teams have shown offensive capabilities in the qualifiers, with Poland averaging a high number of points per game. The Netherlands has...

Unlock reasoning · Pro
🔍 researched 4 sources cited
o4-mini o4-mini Pro
Grok 4.3 Grok 4.3 Pro
Grok 4 Fast Grok 4 Fast 55% over

Both teams tend to play at moderate-to-high pace in international play. World Cup games often produce higher totals when mid-tier European s...

Unlock reasoning · Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro Gemini 3.1 Pro Pro
Gemini 2.5 Pro Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
Gemini 2.5 Flash Gemini 2.5 Flash 52% Over 155.5

Drawing from basketball statistics in my training data (through September 2025), a combined total of 155.5 points is a moderate line for the...

Unlock reasoning · Pro
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 55% over

Both Netherlands and Poland tend to play at a moderate pace with decent offensive capabilities, which should lead to a competitive scoring e...

Unlock reasoning · Pro
DeepSeek V3 DeepSeek V3 55% over

Both teams have shown moderate scoring in previous World Cup qualifiers. Total line is typically around 150-160 in such matchups. Slight lea...

Unlock reasoning · Pro

Spread

Consensus
Poland 3/6
Claude Opus 4.7 Claude Opus 4.7 Pro
Claude Opus 4.6 Claude Opus 4.6 Pro
Claude Opus 4.8 Claude Opus 4.8 Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.6 Claude Sonnet 4.6 Pro
Claude Haiku 4.5 Claude Haiku 4.5 56% Netherlands -5.5

The Netherlands should win this match-up and likely by a small but meaningful margin. A spread of -5.5 is reasonable given the structural qu...

Unlock reasoning · Pro
GPT-5 GPT-5 Pro
GPT-5 Mini GPT-5 Mini —
GPT-4o Mini GPT-4o Mini 70% Poland

Given Poland's strong home performance and undefeated record in the qualifiers, they are likely to cover a -1 spread. The Netherlands has be...

Unlock reasoning · Pro
🔍 researched 4 sources cited
o4-mini o4-mini Pro
Grok 4.3 Grok 4.3 Pro
Grok 4 Fast Grok 4 Fast 58% Poland

Poland's edge in talent and home venue should translate to a modest spread cover. Netherlands rarely covers large road spreads against stron...

Unlock reasoning · Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro Gemini 3.1 Pro Pro
Gemini 2.5 Pro Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
Gemini 2.5 Flash Gemini 2.5 Flash 58% Poland -6.5

Considering historical team strength and international performance trends from my training data (through September 2025), Poland is expected...

Unlock reasoning · Pro
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 51% Netherlands

Given the slight edge for the Netherlands in head-to-head and overall team strength, they are favored to cover a small spread. While Poland...

Unlock reasoning · Pro
DeepSeek V3 DeepSeek V3 60% Poland

Poland likely to cover a modest spread (e.g., -6.5). Home advantage and superior talent should lead to a double-digit win. Netherlands strug...

Unlock reasoning · Pro

First half winner

Consensus
Poland 3/5
Claude Opus 4.7 Claude Opus 4.7 Pro
Claude Opus 4.6 Claude Opus 4.6 Pro
Claude Opus 4.8 Claude Opus 4.8 Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.6 Claude Sonnet 4.6 Pro
Claude Haiku 4.5 Claude Haiku 4.5 60% Netherlands

First-half advantage often correlates with overall match advantage, and the structural superiority of the Netherlands in player quality and...

Unlock reasoning · Pro
GPT-5 GPT-5 Pro
GPT-5 Mini GPT-5 Mini —
GPT-4o Mini GPT-4o Mini 60% Poland

Poland's strong start in previous qualifiers suggests they are likely to lead at halftime. The Netherlands may take time to adjust to the aw...

Unlock reasoning · Pro
🔍 researched 4 sources cited
o4-mini o4-mini Pro
Grok 4.3 Grok 4.3 Pro
Grok 4 Fast Grok 4 Fast 56% Poland

Poland's home advantage and slightly superior roster should help them lead or stay close at half. First-half margins tend to mirror full-gam...

Unlock reasoning · Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro Gemini 3.1 Pro Pro
Gemini 2.5 Pro Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
Gemini 2.5 Flash Gemini 2.5 Flash —
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 52% Netherlands

The Netherlands is expected to start with more intensity and establish an early lead, leveraging their perceived stronger team cohesion. Pol...

Unlock reasoning · Pro
DeepSeek V3 DeepSeek V3 60% Poland

Poland typically starts strong and builds early leads. Netherlands may struggle with initial intensity. Home crowd in first half should give...

Unlock reasoning · Pro

First half winner

Consensus
Poland 1/1
Claude Opus 4.7 Claude Opus 4.7 Pro
Claude Opus 4.6 Claude Opus 4.6 Pro
Claude Opus 4.8 Claude Opus 4.8 Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.6 Claude Sonnet 4.6 Pro
Claude Haiku 4.5 Claude Haiku 4.5 —
GPT-5 GPT-5 Pro
GPT-5 Mini GPT-5 Mini —
GPT-4o Mini GPT-4o Mini —
o4-mini o4-mini Pro
Grok 4.3 Grok 4.3 Pro
Grok 4 Fast Grok 4 Fast —
Gemini 3.1 Pro Gemini 3.1 Pro Pro
Gemini 2.5 Pro Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
Gemini 2.5 Flash Gemini 2.5 Flash 60% Poland

Based on patterns observed in my training data for international basketball matches (up to September 2025), the historically stronger team o...

Unlock reasoning · Pro
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite —
DeepSeek V3 DeepSeek V3 —

Model confidence

Conviction in pick · Match winner
GPT-4o Mini

GPT-4o Mini

Poland

75
Gemini 2.5 Flash

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Poland

65
DeepSeek V3

DeepSeek V3

Poland

65
Claude Haiku 4.5

Claude Haiku 4.5

Netherlands

62
Grok 4 Fast

Grok 4 Fast

Poland

62
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite

Netherlands

53

Model track records

Lifetime

Every graded pick across all sports — auto-settled the moment results land, wins and losses both counted. Ranked by win rate.

GPT-5
GPT-5 119–75 · 61%
+80.4u
Claude Opus 4.8
Claude Opus 4.8 127–98 · 56%
-4.1u
o4-mini
o4-mini 71–60 · 54%
+80.9u
GPT-4o Mini
GPT-4o Mini 699–623 · 53%
-427.7u
Claude Opus 4.6
Claude Opus 4.6 168–154 · 52%
-33.3u
GPT-5 Mini
GPT-5 Mini 514–474 · 52%
-254.7u
Claude Opus 4.7
Claude Opus 4.7 161–153 · 51%
-44.3u
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro 104–99 · 51%
+116.6u
Grok 4.3
Grok 4.3 107–106 · 50%
+106.7u
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 834–853 · 49%
-669.7u
Grok 4 Fast
Grok 4 Fast 605–636 · 49%
-394.5u
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Claude Sonnet 4.6 433–463 · 48%
-309.2u
DeepSeek V3
DeepSeek V3 783–846 · 48%
-537.4u
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 651–714 · 48%
-514.6u
Claude Haiku 4.5
Claude Haiku 4.5 764–913 · 46%
-750.9u
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Gemini 2.5 Pro 130–161 · 45%
-67.8u

Units = net profit at flat 1-unit stakes. The full sortable board lives on the leaderboard.

Refresh the read

Early read

Re-run the AIs closer to kickoff and watch the read evolve. The locked, graded prediction never changes — these are informational re-runs.

Lineups change everything — Pro re-runs the AIs after they drop.

Confirmed XIs, late injuries and line moves land in the final hour. Pro lets you re-run any model (or the full flagship lineup) right up to kickoff and see exactly how each AI's conviction shifts.

Unlock with Pro Create a free account

Pro on-demand

Request an AI audit

Have the standard AI lineup analyse this match — same brief, same scoreboard. Predictions appear publicly once the run finishes.

Sign in and upgrade to Pro to request audits on any future match.

Sign in See Pro

Verifiable brief

Identical prompt sent to every AI · SHA-256 verified

hash: db2bc29eb72248a8…
Kickoff
Mon, Jul 6 · 16:00 GMT+0000
Markets
Match winner · Over / Under · Spread · First half winner
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 4. 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 4, in this order): h2h | totals | spreads | first_half

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": 9973,
        "sport": "basketball",
        "venue": null,
        "league": "World Cup",
        "starts_at": "2026-07-06T16:00:00+00:00",
        "starts_at_human": "Mon, 06 Jul 2026 16:00:00 GMT"
    },
    "teams": {
        "away": "Netherlands",
        "home": "Poland"
    },
    "version": "v2",
    "sport_focus": [
        "Pace is the master variable for totals — multiply both teams' possessions-per-game tendencies, not just their points.",
        "Check the injury/rest report first: a star sitting (or load-managed on a back-to-back) reshapes the spread and total.",
        "Weigh offensive vs defensive rating and three-point volume/variance — 3PT-heavy teams have wider outcome distributions.",
        "Bench depth and foul trouble swing close games; note rotation reliability.",
        "Back-to-backs and travel cause real fatigue — flag the schedule spot for each side.",
        "Home-court edge is meaningful but smaller than star availability."
    ],
    "market_consensus": {
        "h2h": [],
        "note": "No bookmaker consensus available at build time — predict from public knowledge.",
        "extra_markets": []
    },
    "markets_requested": [
        "h2h",
        "totals",
        "spreads",
        "first_half"
    ],
    "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.

Research trail

What each AI looked up before picking

Unlock sources · Pro
  • Grok 4 Fast Grok 4 Fast
    0 tool calls · 0 sources

    No live web access — picked from training-data knowledge.

  • Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
    0 tool calls · 0 sources

    No live web access — picked from training-data knowledge.

  • Gemini 2.5 Flash Gemini 2.5 Flash
    0 tool calls · 0 sources

    No live web access — picked from training-data knowledge.

  • DeepSeek V3 DeepSeek V3
    0 tool calls · 0 sources

    No live web access — picked from training-data knowledge.

  • Claude Haiku 4.5 Claude Haiku 4.5
    0 tool calls · 0 sources

    No live web access — picked from training-data knowledge.

  • GPT-4o Mini GPT-4o Mini
    4 tool calls · 2 sources

    2 citations captured — unlock with Pro

Results settle automatically once the final score lands. Picks are permanent — no hindsight edits.

Recent recaps

How the AI lineup did on other recent matches.

Share
Share X Reddit WhatsApp Telegram Facebook

Get the AI consensus before kickoff

Free. Pre-match alert per AI + see your picks graded as results land.

Sign up free →