← Back to matches
hardoutdoor· China· Chengdu Open

Alexandre Muller vs Moise Kouame

24 Sept, 06:30 · Round 1 · best of 3 · in 3h 32m

Moise Kouameunranked
36%

Why 64% for Alexandre Muller

Each bar is that input's share of the explanatory signal.

Surface Elo (hard)90.3% · +15.8% toward Alexandre Muller
Rest and workload9.7% · -1.7% toward Moise Kouame

Raw model probability 64%, calibrated to 64% for Alexandre Muller. Calibration is fitted on completed matches and pulls confident predictions back toward the centre.

Projected total games

23.7

leans over for a best of 3

Straight sets

52%

chance the match ends without a deciding set

Market comparison

Our model
64%
Market
47%

2.02

Difference
16.5%

Prices exist, but one player is unrated on this surface, so we are not drawing a comparison.

Betano MX · 2.02 / 1.80 · bookmaker margin of 5.1% removed so the two sides sum to 100%. Predictions only — not a profit claim.

Underdog keeps it close

Alexandre Muller is the market underdog, and our model rates them 16.5% higher than the de-vigged price. On top of that, the margin model gives them a 80% chance of finishing within 4.5 games (or winning outright).

Margin model measured on 2,080 settled matches. We carry no handicap prices yet, so this is a statistical read on how close the match should be — not a priced edge.

What is missing here

  • Alexandre Muller is unrated on hard: fewer than 5 matches in our history, so his rating here falls back to his overall level. This also blocks any market comparison for this match.
  • Moise Kouame has a provisional hard rating (5–19 matches), so it is pulled part-way toward his overall rating rather than used at face value.
  • No ATP ranking found for Moise Kouame, so the ranking input is dropped and the prediction rests on Elo alone.
Alexandre MullerMoise Kouame
1691hard Elo1550
1661Overall Elo1551
+30hard vs overall-2
3–1hard record0–2
unratedrating basisprovisional

The model uses an effective rating that pulls a thin surface sample back toward the overall rating: 1667 vs 1551.