En Shuo Liang vs Eunhye Lee
Summary
Match Info
Analysis
Summary: The away moneyline (6.75) looks mispriced versus the available evidence; we estimate ~45% chance for the away player, producing large positive EV at current odds.
Highlights
- • Research shows near-identical player profiles and form — match should be competitive
- • Current away odds (6.75) imply a very low probability and therefore offer substantial value per our model
Pros
- + Large positive expected value at current price (EV = +2.0375 per unit)
- + Decision grounded in symmetry of documented records and lack of evidence for heavy favorite
Cons
- - Market may incorporate unseen factors (e.g., ranking, late info) not present in the provided research
- - Underdog outcomes are higher variance; despite EV, single-match volatility is high
Details
We find clear value on the away moneyline (Eunhye Lee) because the market price (6.75, implied 14.8%) is far out of line with the information in the research. The two player profiles show near-identical records (10-21) and similar surface experience (clay, hard) with no H2H, injury, or form edge reported for En Shuo Liang that would justify a 90% market probability for the home player. Given symmetric evidence and a modest home-court adjustment, we estimate Eunhye Lee's true win probability at 45%. At that probability the fair decimal price is 1 / 0.45 = 2.222; the offered 6.75 therefore represents significant positive expected value. Calculations: estimated_true_probability = 0.45; odds_used_for_ev = 6.75; expected_value = 0.45 * 6.75 - 1 = 2.0375 (203.75% ROI per unit). Because the research provides no clear dominance for the favorite and the market price is extreme, we recommend taking the away side at current widely-available odds.
Key factors
- • Both players show nearly identical career records and surface experience in the provided research
- • No injuries, head-to-head advantage, or form differential reported to justify the heavy favorite price
- • Market-implied probability (14.8%) for the away player is far below our estimated true probability (45%)