MaxBetto
< Back

Megan Heuser vs Anna Petkovic

Tennis
2025-09-11 20:01
Start: 2025-09-12 08:30

Summary

No pick
EV: 0

Current Odds

Home 2.03|Away 1.746
Best Odds

Match Info

Match key: Megan Heuser_Anna Petkovic_2025-09-12

Analysis

Summary: Both players appear near-even based on the supplied profiles; current prices (home 1.80 / away 1.952) do not offer positive EV versus our estimated probabilities, so we recommend no bet.

Highlights

  • We estimate Megan Heuser at ~51.5% win probability
  • Current home odds (1.80) produce a negative EV (-0.073), so no value exists

Pros

  • + Market presents a clear favorite (home) which simplifies EV calculation
  • + Both players have match experience on relevant surfaces per the profiles, reducing unknowns

Cons

  • - Provided research lacks clear form, injury, or head-to-head differentiation
  • - Bookmaker overround (~6.7%) reduces available value in both lines

Details

We view the matchup as essentially even based on the available profiles: both players show identical career spans and similar overall records (10-21) with experience on clay and hard courts and no clear recent-form or head-to-head edge in the provided research. The market prices make Megan Heuser (home) the favorite at 1.80 (implied 55.6%) while Anna Petkovic is listed at 1.952 (implied 51.2%) — the two-way book has an overround of ~6.7%, indicating the book has built in margin. We estimate a slight home-edge but not enough to overcome the market prices: our estimated true probability for Heuser is 51.5% (0.515). At the current home price (1.80) EV = 0.515*1.80 - 1 = -0.073, a negative expectation. The away price (1.952) also fails to offer positive expectation versus our view of the probabilities (EV ≈ -0.053). Therefore there is no value to back either side at the quoted prices and we recommend passing.

Key factors

  • Both players show identical overall records in the provided data (10-21) making them close on paper
  • Market implies a stronger favorite than our model supports (home 1.80 implied 55.6% vs our 51.5%)
  • No differentiating recent-form, injury, surface specialization, or H2H information in the provided research