More wins, More emotions, Less risk.

Ensitics is an esports prediction platform. Every day the model goes through the tournament schedule across esports disciplines, such as Counter‑Strike 2, League of Legends, Dota 2, Valorant, Mobile Legends, Overwatch, Rocket League, Rainbow 6, Honor of Kings, and publishes the matches where it sees an edge. A pick is two things: the side and a confidence level. Simple, easy to use.

What Ensitics isn’t: a stats database like HLTV or Liquipedia, and not a place where you can wager. You get the conclusion rather than the table you’d have to build it from.

1,621 of 2,214 graded picks have won since launch. It’s 73.2%, as of September 12, 2026. Everything is based on the historical database legacy (10+ years) mixed with the actual stats.

Two caveats worth having before that number means anything. First, the win rate is not profit: a feed of heavy favourites can win 80% of the time and still lose money. Second, the two algorithms behave very differently, so a blended win rate hides more than it shows.

HC stands for High Confidence. Matches where the model is unusually sure and the market broadly agrees. Shorter odds, higher strike rate, less drama.

VS is Value Spotter. The opposite: matches where our number and the bookmaker’s number disagree. These lose more often. They also produced all five of our biggest wins so far: O2 Blast at 6.20 (Overwatch, 5 June), Enterprise Esports at 5.30 (Valorant, 7 August), SYGaming at 4.72 (Honor of Kings, 24 June), Gen.G Esports at 4.29 (League of Legends, 27 July), G2 Esports at 3.95 (Valorant, 22 August).

Mixing them without knowing which is which is the most common way to misread the feed.

Ensitics has a huge database of more than 12.1 million rows of data. This historical legacy makes the algorithm work.

The pipeline runs the same loop daily: scan every tournament across all the disciplines, pull the match‑level history for both teams (such as recent series, opponent quality, map and draft splits, roster state, event context), then filter down to only the matches that clear the threshold of one of the two algorithms. Most matches don’t. On a typical day the model looks at hundreds and publishes about 15. Might be more, rarely less.

The output is deliberately narrow: a side, a confidence band, and minimum odds. We don’t publish a probability for every fixture, because a number attached to a match we have no read on is worse than silence.

Yes. One pick a day, permanently, no card required to register. It’s the same model output as the paid feed, just less of it. The point is that you can grade us yourself for a month before spending anything.