Highlights

• • Market-implied probability for home (1.66) is ~60.2% vs our estimate of 55%
• • Minimum fair odds for the home by our model are ~1.818; current price is shorter and therefore negative EV

Pros

• + We use conservative true-probability estimates reflecting very similar player profiles
• + Clear numerical comparison between implied and model probabilities shows negative EV

Cons

• - Player data is limited and nearly identical, so small edges are uncertain
• - No head-to-head, injury, or significant surface-differentiating data in the provided research to justify a stronger edge

Details

We observe market decimals of 1.66 (home) and 2.20 (away), which imply roughly 60.2% and 45.5% raw probabilities after computing 1/odds; the market contains a ~5.7% overround. Both players present nearly identical profiles in the provided data: the same overall 10-21 record, similar surface experience (hard and clay) and recent form that includes recent losses at comparable challenger events. We estimate a modest edge for the home player (Darja Semenistaja) due to home listing and no clear differentiator otherwise, and assign a true win probability of 55.0% for the home player. At that probability the minimum fair decimal odds would be 1.818, while the current market offers 1.66. Using our probability, expected value on the home at 1.66 is negative (EV = 0.55*1.66 - 1 = -0.087), and the away likewise offers no value relative to our model (implied break-even odds for the away would be ~2.222 given our complementary probability). Because neither side offers positive EV at the current widely-available prices, we do not recommend a bet.

Key factors

• • Nearly identical career records and surface experience for both players (10-21)
• • Recent form shows losses in recent challenger events for both players — limited form edge
• • Market price (1.66) implies a larger edge than the available evidence supports; current prices produce negative EV vs our model