Eva Guerrero Alvarez vs Alina Korneeva

Highlights

• • Market-implied probability for Korneeva ~89.5% appears unsupported by the supplied player data.
• • If our 28% estimate for Eva is reasonable, current odds yield a ~+50% ROI on paper.

Pros

• + Large discrepancy between implied market probability and our research-based estimate creates significant theoretical EV.
• + No injury or surface evidence in the provided sources negates the chance for a sudden matchup shock that would invalidate value.

Cons

• - Our estimate relies on limited supplied data; absence of H2H and more detailed match-level stats increases uncertainty.
• - Market may reflect external information not present in the provided research (e.g., ranking, recent practice reports), so actual risk may be higher than our model implies.

Details

The market prices Alina Korneeva at 1.117 (implied ~89.5%), which is far higher than the split suggested by the provided player data. Both players show nearly identical career profiles in the research (10-21 overall records, recent losses at Challenger-level events, activity on clay and hard), and there are no injury notes or decisive form differences in the supplied sources to justify an ~90% win probability for Korneeva. We estimate Korneeva's true win probability at ~72% (Eva Guerrero Alvarez ~28%). At that estimate the home player’s fair odds are ~3.57; the market is offering 5.36 for Eva Guerrero Alvarez, which produces positive expected value. Calculation: estimated_true_probability(home)=0.28 -> min_required_decimal_odds=1/0.28=3.571. EV at current odds (5.36) = 0.28*5.36 - 1 = 0.5008 (≈+50.1% ROI for a single unit stake). Because the supplied data does not support the market’s extreme favoritism, we identify the home line as value.

Key factors

• • Both players show nearly identical career records in the supplied data (10-21), reducing justification for a near-90% market favorite.
• • Recent form in the provided research shows losses for both players at comparable Challenger events — no clear form edge.
• • No injuries or major surface-specialist notes are present in the supplied sources to justify the large market gap; market likely overpricing the favorite.