Anna Petkovic vs Alicia Dudeney

Highlights

• • Market-implied probability for Dudeney is ~78% (un-normalized) and ~72.6% when normalized
• • Our assessed fair price for Dudeney is ~1.887 (53% chance), meaning current books offer no value

Pros

• + Clear, conservative assessment based on the provided identical profiles and recent results
• + We explicitly quantify market overpricing and required fair odds

Cons

• - Limited data set: no H2H, on-site conditions, or additional context to refine the model
• - If there are unreported factors (injury, late withdrawal, matchup nuance), our parity read could be off

Details

We compared the market prices (Away Alicia Dudeney 1.279, Home Anna Petkovic 3.40) to the on-paper data available: both players show nearly identical career spans, identical overall records (10-21), and similar recent form on hard and clay with no injury or H2H information provided. The market implies a ~78.1% chance for Dudeney (1/1.279 = 0.781) and ~29.4% for Petkovic (1/3.4 = 0.294), summing to an overround of ~7.5%. Even after normalizing the market probabilities (Dudeney ~72.6%, Petkovic ~27.4%), the market is heavily skewed toward Dudeney despite the profiles showing parity. We estimate a much closer true probability for Dudeney of 53.0% based on the matching records, surfaces played, and lack of differentiating factors. At that estimated true probability, the fair decimal price for Dudeney would be ~1.887 (1 / 0.53). The available price of 1.279 produces a negative expected value (EV = 0.53 * 1.279 - 1 = -0.322), so there is no value in backing the favorite at current prices. Conversely, backing Petkovic at 3.40 would imply an estimated true probability of only 29.4% (market-implied) which is below our assessed value for her (~47.0%), but even if we flipped the perspective, the market still does not offer positive EV for the underdog given our conservative parity-based estimate. Therefore we recommend no bet: no side shows positive EV at the quoted prices.

Key factors

• • Profiles and records are essentially identical (10-21) with similar recent form
• • No injury, H2H, or surface advantage information that favors one player decisively
• • Market heavily favors Dudeney (implied ~78%), which is not supported by the available player data