Franco Agamenone vs Max Alcala Gurri
Summary
Match Info
Analysis
Summary: We do not find value at current prices: Alcala Gurri is marginally favored but the grass surface and lack of grass data create uncertainty and the quoted odds are too short for a positive expected value.
Highlights
- • Away (Alcala Gurri) implied probability 55.8% vs our estimate 54.0%
- • Minimum fair odds for value on Alcala Gurri ≈ 1.852; current price 1.794 offers negative EV
Pros
- + Alcala Gurri has a slightly better career win rate and more match experience
- + Market correctly markets a favorite; small quantitative edge exists but not enough at current price
Cons
- - Neither player has demonstrated grass-court form in the provided data — high surface uncertainty
- - Recent results show losses and inconsistent form on clay, adding variance and reducing confidence
Details
We evaluate Alcala Gurri (away) as the slight favorite based on career win rate (53/81 vs 41/66) and a marginally stronger recent record, but both players' profiles are overwhelmingly clay-based and this match is on grass — a surface neither player has demonstrated clear competence on in the provided data. The market prices (Away 1.794, Home 2.03) imply the bookmaker gives Alcala Gurri ~55.8% and Agamenone ~49.3%, but after adjusting for surface uncertainty, variance from limited grass experience, and similar recent form (both showing recent losses on clay), we estimate Alcala Gurri's true win probability at ~54.0% (decimal 1.852 fair odds). At the quoted away price (1.794) the expected return is negative (EV = 0.54*1.794 - 1 ≈ -0.031), so there is no value to back the favorite. Given the high surface uncertainty and minimal edge over the market, we decline to recommend a side at current prices and set the minimum required odds for value accordingly.
Key factors
- • Both players' match histories and recent results are almost exclusively on clay, while this match is on grass
- • Alcala Gurri has a slightly better overall win rate and more matches (small edge)
- • Market prices imply a higher probability than our surface-adjusted estimate, producing negative EV