Highlights

• • Quoted odds imply a small favorite but the market overround erodes any edge
• • Best-case candidate (Away 1.83) yields ≈ -0.07 EV using conservative probability estimate

Pros

• + We avoid wagering where the vig and uncertainty remove value
• + Clear, conservative math-based approach (implied -> normalized -> EV) applied

Cons

• - Lack of match-specific data increases uncertainty around the probability estimates
• - If inside information or better odds become available, value could exist but is not present here

Details

We derive implied probabilities from the quoted decimals (Home 1.89 -> 52.91%, Away 1.83 -> 54.64%) and note a market overround (~7.6%). Normalizing to remove the vig yields a roughly even market-implied ‘fair’ split (Home ≈ 49.2%, Away ≈ 50.8%). With no match-specific data (surface, form, injuries, H2H) available, we adopt a conservative estimate equal to the vig-adjusted market probabilities. Using the best candidate (Away at 1.83) our estimated true win probability (~50.8%) produces EV = 0.508 * 1.83 - 1 ≈ -0.07 (negative). Since neither side shows positive expected value after removing the vig and applying conservative assumptions, we recommend no bet.

Key factors

• • Quoted market contains a noticeable overround (~7.6%) so raw implied probabilities overstate true edge
• • No independent data on surface, form, injuries or H2H available — we use conservative, vig-adjusted market probabilities
• • Both sides produce negative ROI after normalization; best candidate (Away) still shows ~-7% EV at current price