Highlights

• • Market implies ~82% for the away pair; we estimate true probability at ~80%
• • Required fair odds for value would be ≥1.25; current 1.22 is slightly too short

Pros

• + Conservative, market-aligned approach minimizes model risk
• + Avoids wagering when available prices don't exceed our fair valuation

Cons

• - Lack of specific match data increases uncertainty in our probability estimate
• - Small mispricings could exist, but not large enough to justify a bet under conservative assumptions

Details

We have no independent match data (form, injuries, surface, H2H), so we adopt a conservative market-based assessment. The market heavily favors the away pair at 1.22 (implied ~82%). Allowing for bookmaker margin and uncertainty, we estimate the away pair's true win probability at 80%. At that probability the fair decimal price would be 1.25, which is above the available 1.22, producing a small negative expected value. The underdog price (3.9) would require an implausibly high true chance (~25.6% implied) to be attractive; given lack of supporting evidence for such a large upset probability, we cannot justify backing the underdog. Therefore we recommend no bet — current prices do not present positive EV under conservative assumptions.

Key factors

• • No independent match data available (form, injuries, surface, H2H)
• • Market strongly favours away pair (1.22) — implied probability ~82%
• • Conservative adjustment for bookmaker margin lowers our fair price to ~1.25