MaxBetto
< Back

Enrique Carrascosa Diaz vs Nicolas Rafael Goldberg Alviani

Tennis
2025-09-04 07:14
Start: 2025-09-04 10:00

Summary

No pick
EV: 0

Current Odds

Home 1.06|Away 8.5
Best Odds

Match Info

Match key: Enrique Carrascosa Diaz_Nicolas Rafael Goldberg Alviani_2025-09-04

Analysis

Summary: Enrique is the probable favorite on clay but the 1.13 price overstates his edge; we do not find positive EV at the current moneyline.

Highlights

  • Market-implied probability (88.5%) is substantially above our estimate (80%).
  • Required fair odds for Enrique at our estimate would be ≈1.25; current 1.13 offers no value.

Pros

  • + Enrique appears marginally better in recent clay matches and has very strong serve metrics in isolated matches.
  • + Nicolas's long-term record is poor, supporting Enrique as favorite.

Cons

  • - Very small sample for Enrique (4 matches) creates high uncertainty around any probability estimate.
  • - Current favorite price (1.13) demands an implausibly high true probability to be +EV.

Details

We estimate Enrique Carrascosa Diaz is the stronger player on clay but we do not see his true win probability as high as the market-implied price. The current home moneyline 1.13 implies a win probability of ~88.5%, but Enrique's limited sample (1-3 in 4 matches) and low-level results do not support such an extreme edge. We estimate Enrique's true win probability at ~80% (0.80). At the posted odds (1.13) EV = 0.80 * 1.13 - 1 = -0.096, so the bet is negative expectation. To break even on our 80% estimate you would need minimum decimal odds of 1.250. Given small sample sizes, mixed form and both players competing mainly at M15/M25 level, there is insufficient value at the current price to recommend backing the favorite.

Key factors

  • Current market implies 88.5% for Enrique (1/1.13) which exceeds our 80% estimate
  • Both players have low-level results on clay; Enrique has tiny sample (4 matches) but slightly better short-term performance
  • Nicolas has much larger match history (25) but a poor 4-21 record, suggesting consistent underperformance rather than volatility