MaxBetto
< Back

Ryan Peniston vs Alberto Morolli

Tennis
2025-09-10 11:02
Start: 2025-09-10 10:56

Summary

Pick: home
EV: 0.0094

Current Odds

Home -|Away 201
Best Odds

Match Info

Match key: Ryan Peniston_Alberto Morolli_2025-09-10

Analysis

Summary: We recommend a bet on the home (Ryan Peniston) at 1.03 because our estimated win probability (98%) exceeds the market-implied probability, giving a small positive expected value.

Highlights

  • Market odds (1.03) imply ~97.09% — we estimate 98% true probability
  • Small positive EV: ~0.94% return per unit staked at current price

Pros

  • + Large experience and superior career win-rate for Peniston
  • + Opponent has limited match record and poor recent results, lowering his implied chance

Cons

  • - Edge is small; returns are modest at current odds
  • - Surface/venue is unspecified in research, introducing uncertainty that could reduce the edge

Details

We view clear value on Ryan Peniston. The market price of 1.03 implies an outright probability of ~97.09%; based on the player profiles Peniston has a much larger sample size (54-24 career) and materially stronger win-rate than Alberto Morolli (2-5 career). Morolli's limited match history and losing recent form make him a longshot. We conservatively estimate Peniston's true win probability at 98.0%, which is higher than the market-implied 97.09%, producing a small positive edge. We discounted our probability slightly for uncertainty around surface/venue and Peniston's recent losses, but the gap between our estimate and the book price still yields positive EV at the quoted 1.03.

Key factors

  • Peniston has a much larger match sample and stronger career win-rate (54-24) compared with Morolli (2-5)
  • Market-implied probability (1.03 → ~97.09%) is slightly below our estimated true win probability (98%)
  • Morolli's small sample size and recent losses increase uncertainty but do not offset Peniston's clear edge
  • Surface/venue not specified in the provided research; this uncertainty reduces confidence and was conservatively accounted for