A. Shevchenko vs K. Jacquet — Prediction & Analysis

TennisEdge's AI model finds no betting value in A. Shevchenko vs K. Jacquet (Montreal on 2026-08-01) — the market is efficient, with K. Jacquet favoured at 1.66.

Model probabilities

Independent estimates of who wins, each from a different method. The blend is what the bot prices against the market.

We publish how well these score against the closing market, including where they lose: how accurate are tennis predictions?

Elo ratings

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 July 21, 2026.

Head to head

A. Shevchenko leads 2–1 over 3 meetings. Full record.

Recent form

All Aug. 1, 2026 results & picks →

Full analysis

═══ A. Shevchenko (A) vs K. Jacquet (B) — Montreal, hard, Final ═══

MODELS vs MARKET
  ELO:   A 41.7% / B 58.3%
  ML:    A 34.8% / B 65.3%
  Model: A 36.6% / B 63.4%
  Book:  A 2.10 / B 1.66 -> devigged A 44.1% / B 55.9%
  All three models AND the market favor B (Jacquet). This is a
  WINNER consensus, not a disagreement. Only magnitude differs
  (models ~63% vs market ~56% devigged). value_edge 7.6% on B is a
  devigged artifact; against the executable price (1/1.66 = 60.2%)
  the model edge is only 3.2% pre-commission (~1.9% post). Below bar.

RECENT FORM / SHAPE (last 5 each)
  Shevchenko (25, rank 85): last 07-21 Kitzbuhel clay L Struff;
  Gstaad clay SF L Tsitsipas(1840), QF/R16 wins over Halys(1751)/
  Stricker; 07-14 R32. Solid clay run but lost the last two. STABLE/
  FADING on clay, no hard-court reps in the window.
  Jacquet (25, rank 136): last 07-22 Estoril clay L Blockx(1834);
  R32 W Merida(1796); Estoril Final L Daniel; deep Wimbledon grass
  run earlier. Battler, many 3-setters. STABLE, also no hard reps.

PATH / SURFACE
  Neither player has a single Montreal match in history — no path to
  this final in the data. Both TRANSITION clay(A)/clay(B) -> hard.
  Transition depresses level and widens margin variance for BOTH,
  and it undermines confidence in ELO/ML which are built on off-
  surface (clay/grass) form. This discounts the model probabilities.

FATIGUE (Step 2)
  At match time (08-01): A last played 07-21 (11d rest), B last
  played 07-22 (10d rest). Fatigue snapshot (B: 574min/12 sets/14d,
  back_to_back 2) is stale — 10 days is full recovery. No extreme
  spot, no 3-set-hangover (nobody won yesterday). Roughly equal,
  no fatigue edge either way. Both 25 -> age-neutral.

NARRATIVE (Step 3)
  No letdown spot at match time. No venue momentum data (no Montreal
  history). Both surface-transitioning (noted above).

GATES
  G1 edge-origin: FAIL — executable-price edge on B is 3.2% vs book
     (no exchange price), below the 8% book-priced bar and even the
     5% base bar. No numeric edge survives.
  G2 consensus:   stake-tier only — full model+market consensus on
     the WINNER (B); nothing to fade.
  G3 fatal-risk:  n/a (ML, not margin) — but surface transition on
     both sides is a real thesis risk.

VERDICT: PASS. Models and market agree B wins; the apparent 7.6%
value is a devig artifact and shrinks to ~3% against the actual
1.66 quote, with no exchange price to execute at. Both players
transitioning off clay undermines the model probabilities that
would drive any thin edge. No stakeable edge.
alt_markets: none at analysis time