Highlights

• • Market implies only ~27% for Wolff; we estimate ~40%.
• • Wolff's extensive career success and multi-surface experience underpins our higher probability.

Pros

• + Clear experience and much larger career sample in Wolff's favor
• + Significant edge between our estimated fair odds (2.50) and current market price (3.71)

Cons

• - Research dataset lacks head-to-head, injury, and current ranking details — unseen info could justify market pricing
• - Qualifier context and short sample for Inglis introduce variance and upset potential

Details

We compare market-implied probabilities to our estimate of true win likelihood. The market prices Maddison Inglis at 1.281 (implied ~78.0%) and Vivian Wolff at 3.71 (implied ~27.0%). From the provided profiles, Wolff has a very large sample (559 wins in 1,066 matches, ~52.4% career win rate) while Inglis has a small sample (10 wins in 31 matches, ~32.3% win rate) and recent results show both players losing in the same recent events. Given Wolff's substantive experience, higher career win rate across surfaces, and Inglis' limited sample and poor recent winning rate, we assess Wolff's true chance of winning this qualifier match materially higher than the market's ~27%. Conservatively we set Wolff's true probability at 40%; at the quoted away price of 3.71 this produces positive expected value (EV = 0.40 * 3.71 - 1 = 0.484). Therefore the away price offers value vs the favorite-priced home line, assuming no undisclosed injuries or other market information that would justify Inglis as such a short favorite.

Key factors

• • Vivian Wolff's much larger career sample and higher career win rate (~52.4% vs Inglis ~32.3%)
• • Market heavily favors Maddison (1.281) despite Inglis' poorer historical win rate and small sample size
• • Both players show recent losses, reducing form-based edge for the favorite and increasing value on experience