Highlights

• • Implied probability from 4.30 is ~23.3%; we estimate true probability ~40%
• • EV at current odds is strongly positive (≈+0.72 per unit staked)

Pros

• + Large gap between implied and estimated true probability creates substantial theoretical edge
• + No supplied evidence (injury/form/H2H) justifies the market’s heavy favorite

Cons

• - Data set is small and both players have limited matches; high variance in outcome
• - Possibility of missing/contextual information (recent injury, withdrawal, or data error) that could justify the short favorite

Details

We see both players with effectively identical profiles (career span, 10-21 record, similar surfaces and recent results) from the provided data, so there is no clear on-paper justification for the market to price the away player as a ~84% favorite (1.188). The home price of 4.30 implies a 23.3% win probability, which looks like an overreaction relative to the parity in the research. Absent injuries, clear form advantage, or H2H evidence in the supplied material, we assign a materially higher true win probability to the home player (we estimate 40%). At that estimate the market is mispricing the home player and offers positive expected value versus the quoted 4.30.

Key factors

• • Both players show nearly identical career records and recent results in the provided data
• • Market odds (away 1.188) imply an outsized favorite despite no supporting advantage in the research
• • No injuries, surface edge, or H2H provided to justify the heavy market skew