M. Brooks/J. Failla vs E. Appleton/I. Haverlag

Highlights

• • Away implied probability (market) ~73.5%; our conservative estimate 70%
• • Both sides produce negative EV at quoted prices (Away EV ≈ -0.048, Home EV ≈ -0.115)

Pros

• + Market clearly favors Appleton/Haverlag, consistent with our conservative estimate
• + We avoid forced bets in the presence of limited information and notable overround

Cons

• - No actionable value exists at current widely-available prices
• - High uncertainty due to missing surface, recent form, and injury/H2H data

Details

We assess the market prices (Home 2.95, Away 1.36) against conservative estimated win probabilities given the lack of form, surface, injury, or H2H data. The market implies roughly 73.5% for the away side and 33.9% for the home side (sum implies a ~7.4% bookmaker overround). Given uncertainty, we conservatively estimate Appleton/Haverlag (Away) have a 70% chance to win and Brooks/Failla (Home) a 30% chance. At our 70% estimate the minimum fair decimal odds would be 1.429; the available away price of 1.36 yields EV = 0.70*1.36 - 1 = -0.048 (negative). The home side at our 30% estimate needs odds ≥ 3.333 to be +EV, but the offered 2.95 yields EV = 0.30*2.95 - 1 = -0.115 (also negative). Both sides are negative-EV by our conservative model, so we recommend no bet. Key drivers of uncertainty are missing surface/form/injury context and the higher volatility of doubles matches, which justify our conservative probability margins and refusal to force a value pick.

Key factors

• • No available form, surface, injury or H2H data — we apply conservative probabilities
• • Bookmakers' prices include ~7.4% overround, reducing apparent value
• • Doubles matches are more volatile; lack of data increases uncertainty