J J. Bianchi/D. Milavsky vs A. Fenty/N. Schachter

Highlights

• • Conservative fair probability used: 50% each
• • Current market prices (1.86) are too short — need ≥2.00 for value

Pros

• + Market is balanced — no clear favorite, reducing likelihood of hidden one-sided risk
• + Easy threshold: odds ≥2.00 would represent value for a 50% true probability

Cons

• - No match intel (form/injury/H2H) increases uncertainty and chance of mispricing
• - Current prices produce negative expected value (-7% ROI)

Details

We have no match-specific research (form, injuries, H2H or surface breakdown) so we adopt a conservative neutral estimate: each pair has an estimated true win probability of 50%. The market shows symmetric moneyline decimals of 1.86 for each side, which implies a book probability per side of ~53.8% (1/1.86). Our estimated true probability (50%) is lower than the market-implied probability, so at the quoted prices there is no value. EV for a 1-unit stake at 1.86 with p=0.50 is 0.50*1.86 - 1 = -0.07 (≈ -7% ROI). To achieve positive EV we would need decimal odds ≥ 2.000 (min_required_decimal_odds). Given the lack of information and the market's pricing, we recommend no bet.

Key factors

• • No match-specific data (form, injuries, H2H, surface stats) available — default to neutrality
• • Market quotes are symmetric at 1.86, implying ~53.8% per side which exceeds our conservative 50% estimate
• • Positive EV would require odds of at least 2.00 given a 50% true win probability