MaxBetto
< Back

Olaf Pieczkowski vs Jacob Fearnley

Tennis
2025-09-11 16:15
Start: 2025-09-12 16:10

Summary

Pick: home
EV: 0.7

Current Odds

Home 8.5|Away 1.05
Best Odds

Match Info

Match key: Olaf Pieczkowski_Jacob Fearnley_2025-09-12

Analysis

Summary: We see value on Olaf Pieczkowski at 8.5 given comparable player profiles and an estimated true win probability (~20%) far above the market-implied ~11.8%.

Highlights

  • Market extreme: Jacob at 1.05 (implied ~95%) vs our estimate of Olaf win chance ~20%
  • Positive EV: estimated ROI of +70% at current 8.5 price

Pros

  • + Large discrepancy between market-implied probability and our estimated probability
  • + Both players show similar form and surface history, supporting a higher upset chance than market implies

Cons

  • - This is a longshot wager and variance is high even if EV is positive
  • - Lack of head-to-head or detailed matchup analytics in the provided research increases uncertainty

Details

We identify clear value on Olaf Pieczkowski. The market prices Jacob Fearnley at 1.05 (implied ~95.2%), which is inconsistent with the players' profiles: both have similar recent win-loss records (Olaf 37-23; Jacob 38-25) and both have experience and recent matches on hard courts. There are no injury notes in the provided research to justify a near-coinflip-to-certain swing to Jacob. Conservatively estimating Olaf's true win probability at 20% (reflecting comparable ability, surface parity, and the possibility of variance in a best-of-three match), the required fair odds would be 5.00, while the market offers 8.50 — producing a large positive expected value. We therefore recommend backing the home longshot at current prices because the implied market probability (11.8%) is materially lower than our estimated probability (20%), yielding a strong positive ROI at the quoted 8.5 decimal price.

Key factors

  • Market implies Jacob has ~95% win probability, which is out of line with both players' similar records
  • Both players have recent hard-court activity and comparable career win rates (no clear dominance shown)
  • No injury or absence data in provided research to justify extreme market pricing