Contact us
Questions about a forecast, a data correction, a research request or an editorial enquiry all reach the same desk. Here is how we handle them, and how quickly.
King Of Correct Score is run by a small analytics team rather than a call centre, which shapes how we handle correspondence. There is one route in — the form below — and it goes directly to the people who build the model and write the editorial copy. That keeps replies substantive: when you ask why a fixture was rated the way it was, the answer comes from whoever can actually inspect the ratings behind it.
Before writing, it is worth telling us what kind of message you are sending, because that determines how it is triaged. Data corrections are the fastest category and the most valuable to us. If a result, fixture date, kick-off time or club name looks wrong, give us the competition, the calendar date and the two clubs, and we will check the record against our licensed provider and refresh the affected pages. These reports genuinely improve the site for every reader, since a single bad result distorts the attack and defence ratios of both teams involved until it is corrected.
Methodology questions are the second category and the one we enjoy most. If you want to know how league baselines are computed, why home advantage is applied as a small multiplier rather than a flat goal, how the scoreline grid is renormalised after truncation, or why a forecast was labelled high confidence when the leading scoreline sits at twelve percent, ask in detail and you will get a detailed answer. We publish the method precisely so it can be interrogated, and questions from readers have already prompted changes to how we word confidence.
Editorial and partnership enquiries form the third category. We are open to research collaborations, academic requests for methodology detail, and permission requests to quote our probabilities in your own work with credit. We are not open to paid placement, sponsored forecasts, affiliate arrangements, guest posts written to carry links, or any proposal that involves altering a published probability. Those messages are read and declined, and telling us plainly what you want in the first paragraph saves everyone time.
Every field is required. The more specific your subject line and detail, the faster the correct person can answer you.
We publish response targets rather than promises of instant replies, because a considered answer about a statistical model takes longer than a template. Data corrections are our priority and are normally acknowledged within one working day and resolved within two, since the correction also has to propagate through the cached season records the model reads. General questions about forecasts, confidence labels or league coverage are answered within two working days. Methodology enquiries that require us to pull historical ratings or reconstruct a past grid can take up to five working days, and we will tell you if that is the case rather than leaving the message unanswered.
Permission, research and partnership enquiries are reviewed weekly, typically at the start of the week, and answered within five working days. Weekends are the busiest period for the fixtures board, so messages arriving between Friday evening and Sunday evening are usually picked up on Monday. Anything that looks like automated marketing, bulk outreach or a request to publish a paid link is filtered without reply.
Two categories of request we cannot fulfil, so that nobody waits on an answer that will never come: we do not provide individual betting recommendations, staking advice, or an opinion on whether you should back a particular scoreline, and we cannot help with disputes involving betting operators — account closures, withdrawal delays, voided bets or settlement disagreements are matters for the operator and, if unresolved, for its licensing regulator or the relevant alternative dispute resolution service. If your message concerns gambling harm rather than football statistics, please contact one of the free, confidential support services listed on our Disclaimer page; they are better placed to help than we are, and they are available around the clock.
Our editorial standard is simple: a forecast is a measurement, not a promise, and a measurement can be audited. If you believe a published number is indefensible, say so and show your reasoning. We will re-run the inputs, and where the model was fed bad data we will correct the record and say what changed. Where the model was fed good data and still produced an unintuitive number, we will explain why the arithmetic behaves that way rather than quietly adjusting the output, because hand-editing forecasts would make every other number on the site less trustworthy.
Clubs, leagues and rights holders who have a concern about how their material appears on the site can reach us the same way. Crests and club names are used for identification and editorial purposes only, and we will amend or remove material promptly where a legitimate rights concern is raised. Journalists are welcome to ask for methodology detail, historical probability records for a specific fixture, or comment on scoring trends in any of the five leagues we cover; please include your deadline in the subject line so we can prioritise accordingly.