MaxBetto
< Back

S. de la Fuente/L. Falabella vs H. Casanova/F. Vazquez

Tennis
2025-09-05 13:18
Start: 2025-09-05 13:12

Summary

No pick
EV: -0.09

Current Odds

Home 1.09|Away 6.75
Best Odds

Match Info

Match key: S. de la Fuente/L. Falabella_H. Casanova/F. Vazquez_2025-09-05

Analysis

Summary: We see no value at the current prices: the favorite is too short at 1.30 against our conservative 70% win estimate, and the underdog at 3.20 is slightly underpriced relative to our 30% estimate.

Highlights

  • Home implied probability from odds: ~76.9%; our estimate: 70%
  • Neither side produces positive EV at the current market prices

Pros

  • + Clear market signal on favorite strength
  • + Conservative estimate reduces chance of overrating an unknown matchup

Cons

  • - Lack of surface, form, and H2H data increases uncertainty
  • - Bookmaker margin (~8%) eats potential edge

Details

We estimate the market is strongly favoring the home pair (market-implied home probability ≈ 76.9% at 1.30) but the posted price includes a sizable bookmaker margin. With no external data on surface, recent form, injuries, or H2H, we adopt conservative, balanced assumptions: we estimate the home pair's true win probability at 70% (away 30%). At that estimate the home side requires ~1.429 to be profitable, while the current 1.30 is too short (EV = 0.70*1.30 - 1 = -0.09). The away side would require >31.25% true probability to justify backing at 3.20; our 30% estimate yields a small negative EV (0.30*3.20 - 1 = -0.04). Given the lack of reliable additional information and the built-in market vig, neither side offers positive expected value at the current prices, so we recommend no bet.

Key factors

  • Market-implied home probability (1.30) ≈ 76.9%, but market includes ~8% margin
  • No available data on surface, form, injuries or H2H — we use conservative estimates
  • Our conservative true probability for home is 70%, below the market-implied break-even
  • Away would need ≥31.25% true probability to be +EV at 3.20; our estimate is slightly lower