TennisEdge's AI model finds no betting value in A. Anisimova vs L. Gjorcheska (Wimbledon on 2026-06-29) — the market is efficient, with A. Anisimova favoured at 1.05.
Independent estimates of who wins, each from a different method. The blend is what the bot prices against the market.
| Method | A. Anisimova | L. Gjorcheska |
|---|---|---|
| Elo ratings-based, surface-weighted |
81.6% | 18.4% |
| Machine learning 29-feature gradient-boosted model |
73.6% | 26.4% |
| Blend what the bot actually prices off |
81.5% | 18.5% |
| Market implied de-vigged from the opening odds |
91.3% | 8.7% |
We publish how well these score against the closing market, including where they lose: how accurate are tennis predictions?
| Player | Surface | Elo | Record | Matches |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. Anisimova | hard | 1994 | 90–46 | 136 |
| L. Gjorcheska | clay | 1546 | 132–79 | 211 |
Our own ratings, computed from match results since 2018. Players with fewer than 5 rated matches are omitted rather than shown at a provisional starting value. Last updated March 24, 2026.
A. Anisimova leads 1–0 over 1 meeting. Full record.
| Date | Event | Surface | Winner | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| June 30, 2026 | Wimbledon | grass | A. Anisimova | 2 - 0 |
| L | M. Keys | 1 - 2 | July 4, 2026 |
| W | S. Kenin | 2 - 1 | July 2, 2026 |
| W | L. Gjorcheska | 2 - 0 | June 30, 2026 |
| L | I. Jovic | 2 - 1 | June 12, 2026 |
| W | L. Siegemund | 0 - 2 | June 10, 2026 |
| W | A. Firman | 1 - 2 | Aug. 4, 2026 |
| L | E. Andreeva | 0 - 2 | July 20, 2026 |
| L | D. Chiesa | 1 - 2 | July 13, 2026 |
| L | A. Anisimova | 2 - 0 | June 30, 2026 |
| W | L. Bronzetti | 2 - 0 | June 25, 2026 |
All June 29, 2026 results & picks →
MATCH: A. Anisimova (A) vs L. Gjorcheska (B) — Wimbledon 1/64-finals, grass, 2026-06-30 MODELS: ELO p(A)=0.816 | ML p(A)=0.736 | model p(A)=0.815. Market: A 1.05 / B 11.0, implied(devig) A=0.913 B=0.087. Value pick B, edge +9.8% (post-shrink). Models meaningfully ABOVE market on B (ELO 18.4%, ML 26.4% vs 8.7% devig) — NOT a consensus, candidate to investigate. FORM A (rested, 0 matches/14d): London QF LOST to Jovic (1872) 2-6 6-3 3-6; London 1/8 WON vs Siegemund (1704) 6-1 6-3 = DOM vs STRONG on grass; French exits on clay. Operates at 1700-1900 opponent level. Real grass class. FORM B (hot but field-inflated): Wimbledon Final WON vs Bronzetti (1542) 6-1 6-2 = DOM; SF WON vs Jorge (1511) 7-5 2-6 6-1 = GRIND; QF WON vs Fita Boluda (1500) 6-2 6-4. All wins vs AVG/WEAK (1500-1542). Baseline is sub-1400 (clay losses to 1248/1358). FATIGUE: A 0 matches/0min 14d (well rested). B 3 matches/9 sets/193min 14d, back-to-back 2, last 6-25. Court-time diff >60min -> edge ANISIMOVA. NARRATIVE: Let-down — B won Final 5d ago = WEAK let-down spot. Venue — B 3-0 at this event but vs weak field; venue amplifies, does not create edge. TITLE: Wimbledon 5d ago (grass) for B. VERDICT: LEAN. Statistical value flagged on B (+9.8%, mutual model agreement), but qualitative read fails to validate a full bet: Gjorcheska's run is against sub-1550 opponents, she is fatigued (9 sets/193min) and in a mild post-title let-down, while Anisimova is rested and DOM'd a STRONG opponent (Siegemund 1704) on grass. Model edge on B looks like a calibration artifact on a lopsided mismatch. Won't commit units to an 11.0 dog with field-inflated form. Predicted winner: Anisimova.