Map Handicap: VIT (-1.5) vs Natus Vincere (+1.5)

YES price

100¢

per share

NO price

per share

$421K 24h volume$271K liquidity$428K total volumeResolves April 18, 2026

About this market

This market refers to the Counter-Strike Quarterfinal 2 match between Vitality and Natus Vincere in the IEM Rio Playoffs, initially scheduled for April 17 at 2:15PM ET. This market will resolve to "Vitality" if Vitality wins 2 or more maps than Natus Vincere in this match. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "Natus Vincere". Maps won by forfeit, disqualification, walkover, or default are counted towards the handicap, provided that the match is completed. If the match is canceled (not played at all for any reason), ends in a tie, or is delayed beyond 7 days from the scheduled date without a winner determined, this market will resolve to 50-50. If the match begins but is not completed, and one team wins due to the opponent's match forfeiture, disqualification, or walkover, this market will resolve to 50-50. If the match ends due to the clinching map being forfeited this will count as a completed match. The resolution source for this market will be official information from https://hltv.org. However, if https://hltv.org has not published final results within 2 hours after the event’s conclusion, a consensus of credible reporting may be used instead including video evidence.

AI Consensus Analysis

AI consensus is locked

Sign up free to see where Claude, Gemini, and Grok think this market is mispriced.

How Clairvoyant analyzes this market

Three AI agents — Claude (Anthropic), Gemini (Google DeepMind), and Grok (xAI) — independently score this market using real-time web data and historical base rates. Their probability estimates are weighted by a proprietary accuracy model and combined into a consensus probability.

When the consensus diverges from the current market price by more than a minimum threshold, it surfaces as a trade opportunity. Kelly Criterion then sizes the position based on the magnitude of the edge — larger gaps produce larger positions, within hard portfolio caps.

Why 3 agents are better than 1