Highlights

• • Market makes Basiletti virtually a lock (1.01) but research does not support near-certain probability
• • No credible evidence in the provided data to justify backing the underdog or the heavy favorite

Pros

• + We avoid a clear negative-EV market on a 1.01 favorite
• + Our approach is evidence-driven and conservative given limited opponent information

Cons

• - If there are undisclosed factors (opponent illness/retirement) the market price could be justified but those factors are not present in the research
• - A potential longshot value on the underdog cannot be credibly assessed without opponent data

Details

We see an extreme market price: Noemi Basiletti at 1.01 implies a ~99.0% win probability, which is not supported by the available performance data. Basiletti's career record in the provided data is 10-21 (≈32% win rate across 31 matches) with recent results showing losses; there is no opponent detail or injury information to justify the market assigning near-certain probability. Using a conservative, evidence-based estimate that Noemi Basiletti's true chance to win is roughly 35% (reflecting her documented win rate and poor recent form), the favorite price (1.01) is massively over-priced from a bettor's perspective (negative EV). To beat the market on the favorite would require an absurd >99% true probability, which we cannot justify from the research. The away price (16.0) would offer +EV if we believed the away player had >6.25% chance, but we have no opponent data to credibly assign such a number with confidence. Therefore we decline to recommend a side and flag the market as mispriced relative to the researched evidence.

Key factors

• • Market-implied probability for the favorite (1.01) is ~99%, inconsistent with documented 10-21 career record
• • Recent form shown in the research indicates multiple recent losses and weak results
• • No usable information on the opponent or mitigating context (injury, withdrawal, or ranking disparity) to justify the market skew