MaxBetto
< Back

James Story vs Mats Rosenkranz

Tennis
2025-09-11 19:47
Start: 2025-09-12 12:00

Summary

No pick
EV: 0

Current Odds

Home 2.09|Away 1.704
Best Odds

Match Info

Match key: James Story_Mats Rosenkranz_2025-09-12

Analysis

Summary: No value bet: Rosenkranz is a narrow favorite but the market price (1.725) exceeds our fair probability (56%), resulting in negative expected value.

Highlights

  • Market-implied probability for Rosenkranz ~58.0% vs our estimate 56.0%
  • Required decimal odds to back Rosenkranz profitably: ≥1.786 (market is shorter)

Pros

  • + Rosenkranz has a deeper recent match history and marginally stronger overall record
  • + Both players are comfortable on the likely surface, reducing variance from surface mismatch

Cons

  • - Recent results show losses for both players — form does not strongly favor either
  • - Market juice/vig and a slight overvaluation of Rosenkranz remove betting value

Details

We estimate Mats Rosenkranz is the marginal favorite based on a larger match sample (44-30 vs Story's 31-23) and both players showing comfort on hard/carpet surfaces. The market prices Rosenkranz at 1.725 (implied ~57.97%) while our assessed win probability for Rosenkranz is ~56.0%, which implies the market is slightly overstating his chances. At 1.725 the expected return on Rosenkranz is negative (EV ≈ -0.034 per unit). James Story at 2.02 (implied ~49.5%) is priced higher than his projected win chance (~44.0% implied by Rosenkranz=56%), but still does not offer positive expected value vs our model. Recent form notes losses for both players in late summer and there is no H2H or injury evidence giving a clear edge that would overturn the slight market lean. Given these inputs, neither side presents positive value at the current widely available prices.

Key factors

  • Rosenkranz has a larger sample and a slightly better career win rate (44-30 vs 31-23)
  • Both players have experience on hard/carpet surfaces — neutral surface edge
  • Market odds (1.725) imply a slightly higher chance than our model (56%), removing value