MaxBetto
< Back

Marco Trungelliti vs Sandro Kopp

Tennis
2025-09-04 08:31
Start: 2025-09-05 09:00

Summary

No pick
EV: -0.0835

Current Odds

Home 1.86|Away 38.74
Best Odds

Match Info

Match key: Marco Trungelliti_Sandro Kopp_2025-09-05

Analysis

Summary: We view the 1.41 on Trungelliti as over-priced relative to our 65% win estimate; required fair odds are ~1.538, so no value exists at current prices.

Highlights

  • Home favored heavily by the market (1.41 implied ~71%)
  • Our model estimate (65%) implies the market is too short on the favorite

Pros

  • + Trungelliti's greater experience and proven grass matches favor him
  • + Market has him as a clear favorite, reflecting public expectation

Cons

  • - Current price (1.41) is below our fair odds (1.538), producing negative EV
  • - Limited direct head-to-head or grass-specific recent form differentials to justify more than a modest edge

Details

We compare the market price (Marco Trungelliti 1.41 -> implied ~71.0%) to our assessment based on surfaces, career profiles, and recent form. Trungelliti has substantial career experience including grass and a long match history (526-393) which gives him an edge on grass over Sandro Kopp, whose profile does not list grass experience and has far fewer career matches (198-150). Both players show recent Challenger-level wins on clay at Tulln, so form is not a clear advantage for Kopp. Given those factors we estimate Trungelliti's true win probability at ~65.0% (0.65), which implies fair decimal odds of 1.538. The current market price of 1.41 is shorter than our required value price, producing a negative expected value (EV = 0.65*1.41 - 1 = -0.0835). Because EV < 0 at the quoted 1.41, we do not recommend taking the favorite here.

Key factors

  • Trungelliti has recorded grass matches in his career while Kopp's profile lacks grass experience
  • Large experience gap (Trungelliti ~920 matches vs Kopp ~349) favors consistency for Trungelliti
  • Both players show recent Challenger clay form at Tulln, so form is roughly neutral and does not justify the market gap