MaxBetto
< Back

Iva Jovic vs Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva

Tennis
2025-09-12 07:06
Start: 2025-09-12 21:30

Summary

No pick
EV: -0.171

Current Odds

Home 1.452|Away 2.89
Best Odds

Match Info

Match key: Iva Jovic_Victoria Jimenez Kasintseva_2025-09-12

Analysis

Summary: Market overprices the home favorite relative to the limited form and record differences; no value exists at the current prices, so we recommend no bet.

Highlights

  • Implied market probability for Jovic ~69.9% (1.43) vs our estimate ~58%
  • Required fair odds for Jovic ≈ 1.724; current price 1.43 yields negative EV

Pros

  • + Jovic is favored by the market — bettors may prefer backing the perceived favorite
  • + Both players have experience on hard and clay, so match-up uncertainty is lower than for a new surface

Cons

  • - Both players show similar overall records (10-21) and recent losses — limited edge for either side
  • - Current favorite price (1.43) offers negative expected value versus our probability estimate

Details

We see the market prices Iva Jovic as the clear favorite at 1.43 (implied ~69.9%). Both players show very similar career records (10-21) and recent form—multiple recent challenger losses—so there is no strong performance signal to justify the market's large gap. We estimate Jovic's true win probability around 58%, which implies fair odds of ~1.724. At the current price of 1.43 the expected value is negative (EV = 0.58 * 1.43 - 1 ≈ -0.171), so there is no value on the home side. The away price (2.65, implied ~37.7%) would require a true win probability >37.7% to be +EV; given both players' matching records and recent results we don't see reliable evidence that Jimenez Kasintseva's true win chance exceeds that threshold. With no clear edge and negative EV on the favorite, we recommend no bet.

Key factors

  • Market implies Jovic win probability ~69.9% (1.43) — appears steep given available data
  • Both players have near-identical career records (10-21) and recent challenger losses — limited separation in form
  • No injury or surface advantage evidence in the provided profiles to justify market gap