MODEL PREDICTION · 2026-07-15

S. Tsitsipas vs J. Kymprediction

✓ Correct
TSITSIPASWIN PROBABILITYKYM
56%
model prob.
@1.38
odds · 72% impl.
🌡24° · 51% hum1050 m altitude🎾Serve 70%📈Form 4/10
THE MODEL'S REASONING

Ranking: #87 vs #175 (better ranked)

Recent form: 4/10 in recent matches

Model 56% vs market 72% → the model sees it as less likely than the odds

Calibrated model probability (~65% out-of-sample accuracy). Not a guarantee: the model ≈ the market on average, so the odds already capture almost all the edge. 18+ · gamble responsibly.
@1.78
fair odds
−22.4%
expected value
HOW EACH FACTOR MATTERS
Level (Elo/ranking)▸ Tsitsipas●●●
Tsitsipas leads in Elo (1901 vs 1845) and ranking (#87 vs #175); the model's 52% baseline reflects only a modest edge.
Serve/return▸ Tsitsipas●●
Tsitsipas serves at 70% vs Kym's 66%, though Kym's 36% return rate slightly outperforms Tsitsipas's 35%.
Form▸ Kym●●
Kym has won 7 of his last 10 (WLWWLWWWLW) versus Tsitsipas's 4/10 (WLLWLLLWLW), showing sharper recent momentum.
Rest▸ Tsitsipas●●
Kym played 5 matches in the last 14 days versus Tsitsipas's 2, adding fatigue that could erode his return consistency.
Altitude▸ Tsitsipas
At 1050m the thinner air speeds the ball, favoring the stronger server: Tsitsipas's 70% versus Kym's 66%.
Weather= Even
Warm, dry conditions (24°C, 9 km/h wind) are mild enough that neither player's game style is meaningfully disrupted.
LEVEL GAP

Tsitsipas holds a clear structural advantage in both Elo (1901 vs 1845) and ranking (#87 vs #175), reflecting a longer track record of higher-level results. The model's 52% baseline probability, however, shows this gap is not overwhelming — it's a real but modest edge, not a mismatch.

This tempers the ranking narrative: Tsitsipas is the better-established player, but the numbers don't support treating him as a heavy favorite on quality alone.

SERVE VS MOMENTUM

On serve, Tsitsipas's 70% winning rate on service points outpaces Kym's 66%, a four-point gap that should help him hold more comfortably in tight games. Return numbers are essentially even (35% vs 36%), so neither player projects a clear neutralizing advantage on return.

Form tells a different story. Kym arrives having won 7 of his last 10 matches, including a win over a higher-Elo opponent (Kokkinakis, 1948), while Tsitsipas is just 4/10 over the same span. This divergence in current form works against the ranking gap and adds real uncertainty to the outcome.

FATIGUE AND CONDITIONS

Kym has played 5 matches in the last 14 days compared to Tsitsipas's 2, a workload difference that could show up in his physical sharpness and return efficiency as the match progresses, even though both are on 1 day of rest.

The 1050m altitude in Gstaad speeds up the ball slightly, which mechanically favors the better server — in this case Tsitsipas, given his 70% serve-points-won figure. Weather (24°C, low wind) is mild and shouldn't meaningfully affect either player's execution.

VALUE READ

The model gives Tsitsipas a 56% chance of winning, while the market price (odds of 1.38) implies a much higher 72% probability. That gap produces a negative expected value of -22.4%, meaning the market is pricing Tsitsipas as a considerably stronger favorite than the model's factor-based read supports.

Being the favorite here does not equate to being a value bet. Given the model's more conservative view — driven partly by Kym's recent form and workload disadvantage narrowing the gap — backing Tsitsipas at this price offers no statistical edge and, by the model's own numbers, is a negative-expectation wager.

Impact and analysis from real match data (Elo, form, head-to-head, rest, surface vs baseline, weather, altitude). The model ≈ the market on average; the odds already capture almost all the edge. 18+ · gamble responsibly.

Analyze today's matches →