Viola Bedini vs Alicia Dudeney
Summary
Current Odds
Match Info
Analysis
Summary: The away price (1.01) implies near-certainty that is inconsistent with Dudeney's modest career record; backing the home longshot at 16.0 looks like value if no late-breaking info explains the skew.
Highlights
- • Home needs only ≈6.25% chance to be profitable at 16.0; we estimate ~10%
- • Conservative estimate produces +0.60 EV on a 1-unit stake at current odds
Pros
- + Very favorable price on the underdog relative to plausible win probabilities
- + Dudeney's career win-rate is low, supporting skepticism of a 99% market price
Cons
- - We lack any direct data on Viola Bedini — unknown-strength opponent risk
- - Extreme market skew could reflect late information (injury/withdrawal) not in our data
Details
We see an extreme market price: the away player is priced at 1.01 (implied ~99%), which requires near-certainty that Alicia Dudeney wins. Using the only available performance data (Dudeney career 10-21, win rate ~32%) we conclude the book has massively overstated her probability. Even allowing a very generous true win chance for Dudeney (≈90%), the home player (Viola Bedini) retains non-trivial chance to win and the 16.0 price on the home side offers positive expected value. We conservatively estimate Viola's true chance at 10% (Dudeney 90%), which implies a min fair price of 10.0 for the home. At the quoted 16.0 the longshot has a clear edge vs the implied market probability. Key uncertainties: we have no head-to-head, little/no data on Viola, and market may reflect late information (injury, withdrawal) — but absent that, the posted 1.01 suggests a pricing error or over-sharpened favorite.
Key factors
- • Market-implied probability for the away player is unrealistically high (~99%)
- • Alicia Dudeney's recorded career win rate (10/31 ≈ 32%) does not support near-certainty
- • No available data on Viola Bedini increases uncertainty and raises the chance of market mispricing