MaxBetto
< Back

Austin Krajicek / Rajeev Ram vs Tomas Machac / Adam Pavlasek

Tennis
2025-09-13 07:33
Start: 2025-09-13 18:00

Summary

Pick: home
EV: 0.12

Current Odds

Home 1.813|Away 2
Best Odds

Match Info

Match key: Austin Krajicek / Rajeev Ram_Tomas Machac / Adam Pavlasek_2025-09-13

Analysis

Summary: We recommend betting the home doubles pair (Krajicek/Ram) because our conservative 62% win probability yields ~12% EV at the current 1.806 price.

Highlights

  • Current odds (1.806) understate our conservative estimated probability (62%).
  • Positive expected value of roughly 0.12 units per 1-unit stake under our view.

Pros

  • + Strong doubles specialists with advantageous teamwork and tactics
  • + Price contains value versus our conservative probability estimate

Cons

  • - No recent match-level research or surface info provided; lineup changes possible in Davis Cup
  • - Davis Cup can be volatile (motivation, crowd, late substitutions) which increases variance

Details

We view Austin Krajicek / Rajeev Ram as a clear doubles-specialist pair edge over Tomas Machac / Adam Pavlasek in a Davis Cup doubles rubber. The market-priced decimal 1.806 implies an implied win probability of about 55.4%, but given the home team's established doubles pedigree, likely better teamwork and match-tactics in doubles, and the opponents being more singles-oriented, we conservatively estimate the true win probability at 62%. That estimate produces positive value versus the current price: EV = 0.62 * 1.806 - 1 ≈ 0.12 (12% ROI). We acknowledge uncertainty from unknown surface, possible late team selection changes in Davis Cup, and the absence of fresh external match-level data, so our probability is conservative; even so the current price appears to understate the home pair's win chances enough to present value.

Key factors

  • Home pair are established doubles specialists with superior doubles skillset
  • Opponents are primarily singles players with less proven doubles pedigree
  • Market-implied probability (~55.4%) appears lower than our conservative true estimate (62%)
  • Uncertainty: surface, lineup confirmation, and lack of up-to-date external data