Lavinia Luciano vs Sevil Yuldasheva
Summary
Match Info
Analysis
Summary: No value — market overprices the home favorite given nearly identical player profiles and no supporting evidence; required fair price for the home is ~1.818.
Highlights
- • Book implies ~78% for Lavinia Luciano at 1.277; we estimate ~55% realistically.
- • Current favorite price produces negative EV (≈ -0.30 per unit staked).
Pros
- + Clear, conservative read: both players' records and form are similar so avoid taking a chalk price with poor edge.
- + Identifies the breakeven price (1.818) needed to consider a Luciano back.
Cons
- - If there are unreported factors (injuries, recent practice form, local conditions) that favor Luciano, we may be understating true probability.
- - If further data shows Sevil Yuldasheva is significantly weaker than presented, the away price could be mispriced and create hidden value for the favorite.
Details
The market prices Lavinia Luciano as a heavy favorite at 1.277 (implied ~78.3%). The research shows both players have virtually identical career stats and recent form (each 10-21 with recent losses), with no H2H, injury, or surface edge presented that would justify such a large gap. We estimate Luciano's true win probability materially lower than the market-implied ~78% (we estimate ~55%), so the current favorite price is overpriced by the book and offers negative expectation. To back Luciano profitably we would need at least ~1.818; conversely, the away price (3.41) would be attractive only if there were clear reasons to assign Sevil Yuldasheva a win probability above ~29.3% — the research does not support that differential. Given the similar profiles and lack of differentiating information, there is no clear value on either side at these prices.
Key factors
- • Both players show nearly identical career records and recent form (10-21 record, recent losses).
- • Market implies a very large favorite (78% for home) without supporting differentiators in the provided research.
- • No H2H, injury, or surface advantage info in the research to justify the market gap.