MaxBetto
< Back

Sloane Stephens vs Lucrezia Stefanini

Tennis
2025-09-09 01:39
Start: 2025-09-10 01:30

Summary

Pick: home
EV: 0.2825

Current Odds

Home 2.47|Away 1.575
Best Odds

Match Info

Match key: Sloane Stephens_Lucrezia Stefanini_2025-09-10

Analysis

Summary: We find value backing Sloane Stephens at 2.85 because the market overstates the away favorite given nearly identical recent records; our estimated win probability for Stephens is ~45%, producing positive EV.

Highlights

  • Market implies 35.1% for Stephens vs our 45% estimate.
  • Positive EV of ~0.283 (28.25% ROI on a 1-unit stake) at current 2.85 price.

Pros

  • + Price significantly above our fair odds threshold (min required 2.222).
  • + Both players' records and recent results provided show little to separate them, supporting a contrarian play on the underdog.

Cons

  • - Research is limited and symmetric — no clear edge in injuries, H2H, or surface form to strongly justify discrepancy.
  • - High uncertainty in true probability estimate; outcomes in single matches are volatile.

Details

The market prices Lucrezia Stefanini as a strong favorite (implied ~69.9%) while Sloane Stephens is priced at 2.85 (implied ~35.1%). The available research shows both players with nearly identical recent records (10-21 season record, similar recent losses and surfaces played). Given the parity in form and lack of clear advantage in the provided data, we view the market as over-weighting Stefanini. Adjusting for the bookmaker vig and the limited but symmetric performance data, we estimate Stephens' true win probability materially above the market-implied 35%, making the 2.85 price value for a laydown bet on the home player.

Key factors

  • Both players show identical season records and similar recent form in the provided data (10-21).
  • Bookmaker-implied probability for the away player (~69.9%) appears too high given the symmetric performance data.
  • Limited sample and lack of distinguishing injury/H2H/surface advantage increase model uncertainty but also suggest mispricing rather than clear superiority.