Highlights

• • Favorite (Faurel) implied probability ~98.7% vs our estimate 93.0%
• • Required fair odds for our estimate: 1.075; market is 1.013 (no value)

Pros

• + Clear decision: market pricing is extreme and easy to evaluate
• + We avoid betting on nearly-certain outcomes with insufficient edge

Cons

• - Lack of match-specific data increases uncertainty in our probability estimate
• - If the market is correctly accounting for unknowns (injury/withdrawal risk), our estimate could be too generous

Details

We see an extreme market skew: Thomas Faurel is priced at 1.013 (implied probability ~98.7%) and Nicolas Parizzia at 46.8. No external research was available, so we adopt conservative assumptions. We estimate Faurel's true win probability at 93.0% (0.93) given typical tennis variance, unknown surface/form, and the improbability of a 98.7% true chance. At that probability the fair decimal price would be 1.075; the current market price of 1.013 produces negative expected value. EV calculation for Faurel: EV = p * odds - 1 = 0.93 * 1.013 - 1 = -0.05791 (≈ -5.79% ROI). For Parizzia, even if we assign him a 7% chance, EV = 0.07 * 46.8 - 1 = -0.276 (≈ -27.6% ROI). Neither side shows positive expected value at the quoted prices, so we do not recommend a bet.

Key factors

• • Extreme market odds imply an implied probability (~98.7%) we judge too high
• • No external research available — we apply conservative, variance-aware probability
• • Both sides produce negative EV at quoted prices (favorite’s juice is too steep)