Highlights

• • Home implied probability (87.7%) is higher than our conservative estimate (85%).
• • Required fair odds (~1.176) are longer than the market quote (1.14), so EV is negative.

Pros

• + Clear market pricing and an obvious favorite — low probability of a large upset, reducing variance for risk managers.
• + We use conservative assumptions to avoid overbetting in a data-poor situation.

Cons

• - No external information on surface, form or injuries increases uncertainty around our probability estimate.
• - Heavy favorite pricing leaves very little margin; small errors in probability translate to negative EV.

Details

We compare the book's pricing to a conservative estimated win probability. The market prices the home pair at 1.14 (implied ~87.7%). Given no external form, surface, H2H or injury information, we apply a conservative estimate that the home team has about an 85% chance to win (we account for doubles volatility and the possibility of underdogs performing above expectation). At 85% true probability the fair decimal price is ~1.176; the offered 1.14 is shorter than that, producing a negative expected value on the favorite. The away price (5.3) implies ~18.9% but, under our estimate, the away true probability (~15%) would also offer negative EV at that quote. Because neither side shows positive expected value at the available prices, we recommend not betting.

Key factors

• • Market-implied probability (home 1.14 => ~87.7%) vs our conservative estimate (85%)
• • Lack of concrete data on surface, recent form, injuries, and H2H — increases uncertainty
• • Doubles matches have higher variance; small edges required to justify wagering