Highlights

• • Career win-rate gap strongly favors Luiza
• • Current market price for Luiza (13.0) implies a probability far below what historical data supports

Pros

• + Large positive EV at current quoted odds (EV ≈ 7.05 for a 1-unit stake)
• + Luiza's extensive match experience and higher win rate reduce model uncertainty relative to Renata

Cons

• - Extremely skewed market suggests there may be undisclosed late information (injury, withdrawal, or match conditions) not present in the Research
• - Small sample for Renata increases uncertainty around translating her win-rate into matchup probability, and unknown contextual factors (surface, recent head-to-head) could materially change the true probability

Details

The market price (Luiza 13.0 vs Renata 1.01) implies Luiza has ~7.7% chance to win, which is implausibly low given the available data. Using career win-rate evidence (Luiza 559-507 across 1,066 matches vs Renata 10-21 across 31 matches) and equalizing for head-to-head-like comparison, we estimate Luiza is substantially superior on historical form and experience. Both players show recent losses in the Research, but there is no documented injury or withdrawal information to justify the near-certainty assigned to Renata. Translating career win rates into a relative win probability gives Luiza an estimated true probability of ~61.9% to win. At the quoted home price of 13.0 this produces a very large positive expected value (EV = p * odds - 1). Given the magnitude of the discrepancy between our probability estimate and the market-implied probability, we identify clear value on Luiza unless there is undisclosed late information (injury/withdrawal) not present in the Research.

Key factors

• • Luiza Fullana has a much larger sample size and higher career win rate (559/1066 ≈ 52.4%) compared with Renata (10/31 ≈ 32.3%)
• • Both players show recent losses but no documented injuries or withdrawals in the provided Research to justify extreme market skew
• • Market-implied probability for Renata (1/1.01 ≈ 99.0%) is inconsistent with the performance data in the Research, indicating a likely pricing anomaly