MaxBetto
< Back

Igor Gimenez vs Gabriel Augusto Carvalho

Tennis
2025-09-10 22:52
Start: 2025-09-10 22:45

Summary

No pick
EV: -0.414

Current Odds

Home 1.06|Away 22.09
Best Odds

Match Info

Match key: Igor Gimenez_Gabriel Augusto Carvalho_2025-09-10

Analysis

Summary: Market price (1.117) implies ~89.5% win probability, but supplied data (career win-rate ~52.5% and recent losses) do not justify that level of confidence — no value at current odds.

Highlights

  • Implied market chance ~89.5% vs our estimate ~52.5%
  • No opponent data in research to validate the heavy favorite price

Pros

  • + Gimenez has a reasonable volume of matches (59) and experience at ITF level
  • + Market clearly favors him, which can reflect insider information in some cases

Cons

  • - Quoted odds (1.117) imply an extreme probability that is not supported by the supplied record
  • - Recent form in provided items shows losses, reducing confidence vs the market price

Details

We compare the market-implied chance (1 / 1.117 ≈ 89.5%) to our estimate of Gimenez's true chance. Using only the supplied data, Gimenez's career record is 31-28 (31/59 ≈ 52.5% win rate) and his recent listed matches show losing outcomes in August 2025, which suggests form is not strongly supportive of an ~90% market probability. There is no opponent information in the research to justify the extreme market compression. Even if we give Gimenez the benefit of the doubt and use his career win-rate as a baseline (adjusted slightly for recent losses), our estimated true probability (~52.5%) is far lower than the implied ~89.5%, producing a large negative expected value at the quoted 1.117 price. Therefore we do not recommend taking the heavy favorite at current prices.

Key factors

  • Career win rate from provided data: 31 wins in 59 matches (~52.5%)
  • Recent listed results in August 2025 show losses, indicating weaker short-term form
  • Market-implied probability (~89.5%) is far above what the supplied evidence supports; opponent info is not provided to justify this gap