Jia-Jing Lu vs Eunhye Lee
Summary
Match Info
Analysis
Summary: The available data does not support the market’s large home edge; backing the away player at 2.67 offers value assuming roughly equal ability (estimated true probability ~50%).
Highlights
- • Home implied probability (≈69%) looks overstated given identical player profiles
- • Away price 2.67 exceeds our min required odds (2.00) for a 50% win chance, producing EV ≈ +0.335
Pros
- + Clear positive EV at the currently quoted away price if players are of similar level
- + Conservative probability estimate (50%) still produces a large margin over the market's implied break-even
Cons
- - Research is truncated and limited — no detailed recent form, H2H, or injury data to confirm the estimate
- - If there is undisclosed information (e.g., home player advantage, recent form swing), value could disappear
Details
We find value on Eunhye Lee (away). The market prices Jia-Jing Lu at 1.448 (implied ~69.1%) which is a strong favorite, but the available research shows both players with essentially identical profiles (career span, 10-21 records, surfaces played and truncated recent-form data) and provides no substantive reason to assign such a large edge to the home player. Given the symmetry in the available data and no injury/surface advantage reported, we estimate the true win probability for the away player around 50%. At that probability the away decimal price of 2.67 yields positive expected value (EV = 0.50 * 2.67 - 1 = 0.335). Therefore the away side represents a value bet versus the market's implicit 37.45% break-even threshold for that price. Calculations: market implied probabilities — Home 1/1.448 = 0.691, Away 1/2.67 = 0.375. Our estimated true probability (0.50) is materially higher than the market-implied 0.375 for the away, producing EV. We use the listed current decimal odds for the EV calculation.
Key factors
- • Both players show near-identical career records (10-21) and surfaces played in the provided data
- • Market implies a large home advantage (≈69%) not supported by the supplied profiles or recent-form data
- • No injuries, surface, or head-to-head information in the research to justify the bookmaker gap