Highlights

• • Home implied probability ~97% (1.03) but player's record and form do not justify near-certainty
• • Away implied probability ~8% (12.5) looks like an outlier with no supporting data

Pros

• + Clear numerical mismatch between implied market probabilities and player profiles
• + If market is wrong due to data error the away price could be huge value

Cons

• - No corroborating evidence (injury, H2H, surface dominance) to justify taking the long shot
• - Extreme market distortion increases risk of the book having additional information we don't have

Details

We estimate these two players are closely matched based on career records (both ~10-21/22) and similar surface experience; recent form shows multiple losses for each, so a near-even true probability is reasonable. The market prices are extreme and inconsistent with available data: the home price of 1.03 implies ~97.1% while the away price of 12.5 implies ~8.0%, which is not supported by the profiles and recent results. Using a conservative estimated true win probability for the home player of 55% implies a minimum fair price of ~1.818; at the listed 1.03 the expected ROI is strongly negative, so we decline to recommend a play. The away price looks superficially attractive, but there is no evidence from form, surface split, or head-to-head to justify the very low implied probability the market assigns to her; given the extreme market distortion and lack of corroborating information, we avoid exploiting what could be a data/market error rather than genuine value.

Key factors

• • Nearly identical career records and match counts (10-22 vs 10-21) suggesting a close contest
• • Recent form shows multiple recent losses for both players; no clear form edge
• • Market prices are extreme (home 1.03 vs away 12.5) and inconsistent with available performance data