Highlights

• • Charlton: larger sample size and slightly better historical record
• • Bookmakers' price (1.68) implies ~59.5% which overstates Charlton vs our 54% estimate

Pros

• + Charlton's greater match exposure and surface versatility are positive indicators
• + Slight win-rate edge for Charlton versus Jones in the provided data

Cons

• - Charlton's edge is modest; the difference in raw win-rate is small (42.1% vs 40.0%)
• - Market currently overprices Charlton, producing a negative expected return

Details

We compare the bookmakers' pricing to our estimated win probability based solely on the provided player profiles. Joshua Charlton has a marginally better career win rate (16-22 = 42.1%) and a much larger match sample (38 matches) versus Scott Jones (6-9 = 40.0%, 15 matches), plus experience on all three surfaces listed. The market lists Charlton at 1.68 (implied probability 59.5%). We estimate Charlton's true win probability around 54.0% based on the combined evidence of slightly better historical win rate, greater match experience, and broader surface history. At p=0.54 the fair decimal price is 1/p = 1.852, below the market price of 1.68, so the market is overpricing Charlton and offers negative expected value. Calculation: EV at current odds = 0.54 * 1.68 - 1 = -0.0928 (≈ -9.3% ROI). Because EV is negative we do not recommend a bet on either side at the current prices.

Key factors

• • Charlton has a larger sample size (38 matches) and a marginally higher career win rate (42.1% vs 40.0%)
• • Charlton has recorded play on Clay, Hard and Grass; Jones is only on Hard and Grass in the provided data
• • Market-implied probability for Charlton (59.5%) exceeds our estimated true probability (54%), producing negative EV