MBModelBall

THE LEADERBOARD

Six Methods. Live Results.

Ranked by prediction accuracy. The key question: does knowing each AI's blind spots improve results?

Matches scored: 29
Edge ahead by 0.002

THE KEY QUESTION: Does knowing AI blind spots improve predictions?

The Edge
59%
17/29 correct
-0%
Edge more accurate
Simple Average
59%
17/29 correct
Bias corrections are helping — The Edge is beating the simple average.

Full standings

RankMethodMatchesCorrectAccuracyBriervs Avg
1
Grok 3
The Contrarian
291759%0.571−0.008
2
The Edge
Bias-corrected
291759%0.576−0.002
3
GPT-5.4
The Market Baseline
291655%0.578−0.000
4
Simple Average
Equal-weight blend
291759%0.578
5
Claude Sonnet 4.6
The Analyst
291759%0.586+0.007
6
Gemini 3.1 Pro
The Generalist
291759%0.587+0.009

Accuracy: Percentage of match outcomes correctly predicted.

Brier: Technical accuracy score (lower = better, 0 = perfect).

vs Avg: Brier score difference from simple average.Negative = beating average,positive = behind.

Understanding the methods

The five models

GPT-5.4, GPT-5.5, Claude, Grok, and Gemini each make predictions independently. Each has documented biases from our fingerprinting research.

View model profiles →

Simple average

Equal-weight blend of all five AI predictions. The baseline — if The Edge can't beat this, our corrections don't add value.

The Edge

Bias-corrected blend. We know each AI's blind spots, so we trust them less in those situations.

How it works →

Every outcome teaches

If Edge leads: fingerprints help. If Naive leads: we learn and refine. Either outcome advances the research.

The experiment →

Which players did AI misprice?

After 104 matches, we'll know exactly which players the models systematically undervalued or overvalued. Get the full Transfer Arbitrage Report in July 2026.

Learn More About the Report