Highlights

• • Current away price (2.28) > break-even odds (2.174) for our estimate
• • Edge is small but positive (EV ≈ 4.9%) driven by market overpricing of the home player

Pros

• + Positive expected value at available price
• + Market appears to overstate Steiner's win probability relative to career and recent form data

Cons

• - Small sample size for Paardekooper increases outcome variance and uncertainty
• - Edge is modest; match-level factors not fully observable in the provided research

Details

We compare the market prices to what the available player profiles imply. Maik Steiner has a much larger sample (166 matches, 70-96, ~42% career win rate) while Stijn Paardekooper has a small sample (22 matches, 7-15, ~32% career win rate). Both players have recent clay activity in the research, so surface does not create a clear large edge for either. The market is strongly favouring Steiner at decimal 1.578 (implied ~63%), which appears overstated given his career win rate and recent mixed results. Using a conservative adjustment for match-specific factors (Steiner experience advantage but Paardekooper volatility and potential bookmaker skew), we estimate Paardekooper's true win probability at 0.46. At the available away price of 2.28 this produces positive expected value (EV = 0.46 * 2.28 - 1 ≈ 0.049). Therefore we recommend the away side because the current quoted odds (2.28) exceed our minimum required fair odds (≈2.174), giving a small but positive edge. We note the signal is modest and driven by market over-adjustment toward the home player rather than overwhelming evidence that Paardekooper is the stronger player.

Key factors

• • Steiner has a larger career sample (166 matches) with ~42% career win rate
• • Paardekooper has a small sample (22 matches) and lower career win rate (~32%), increasing variance
• • Both players show recent clay activity; surface does not strongly favour either
• • Market strongly favours Steiner (implied ~63%), which appears overstated vs. available performance data
• • Positive EV for away arises from market overpricing of home rather than clear superiority of away