TennisEdge's AI model finds no betting value in G. Ruse vs P. Stearns (Toronto on 2026-08-03) — the market is efficient, with G. Ruse favoured at 1.83.
Independent estimates of who wins, each from a different method. The blend is what the bot prices against the market.
| Method | G. Ruse | P. Stearns |
|---|---|---|
| Elo ratings-based, surface-weighted |
48.3% | 51.7% |
| Machine learning 29-feature gradient-boosted model |
61.0% | 39.0% |
| Serve / return point-by-point simulation |
60.1% | 39.9% |
| Blend what the bot actually prices off |
48.3% | 51.7% |
| Market implied de-vigged from the opening odds |
50.0% | 50.0% |
We publish how well these score against the closing market, including where they lose: how accurate are tennis predictions?
| Player | Surface | Elo | Record | Matches |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G. Ruse | hard | 1766 | 83–58 | 141 |
| P. Stearns | hard | 1745 | 97–74 | 171 |
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 Aug. 3, 2026.
G. Ruse leads 2–0 over 2 meetings. Full record.
| Date | Event | Surface | Winner | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug. 3, 2026 | Toronto | hard | G. Ruse | 2 - 0 |
| Feb. 14, 2026 | WTA Dubai | hard | G. Ruse | 2 - 1 |
| W | P. Stearns | 2 - 0 | Aug. 3, 2026 |
| L | K. Quevedo | 2 - 0 | July 14, 2026 |
| L | C. McNally | 0 - 2 | June 30, 2026 |
| L | K. Muchova | 0 - 2 | June 26, 2026 |
| W | E. Navarro | 0 - 2 | June 25, 2026 |
| L | G. Ruse | 2 - 0 | Aug. 3, 2026 |
| L | E. Kalieva | 2 - 1 | July 31, 2026 |
| W | T. Prozorova | 0 - 2 | July 30, 2026 |
| W | M. Stoiana | 1 - 2 | July 28, 2026 |
| L | N. Bartunkova | 1 - 2 | June 29, 2026 |
All Aug. 3, 2026 results & picks →
G. Ruse (A) vs P. Stearns (B) — WTA Toronto, hard, 1/64-finals
MODELS vs MARKET
ELO: Ruse 48.3% / Stearns 51.7%
ML: Ruse 61.0% / Stearns 39.0%
Betfair ML: Ruse 2.10 (47.6%) / Stearns 1.81 (55.2%)
Book: 1.83 / 1.83. Value-pick flag B, +1.7% (negligible).
Read: ELO ~= exchange (both have Stearns as slight fav). ML is the LONE outlier,
calling Ruse 61%. ELO+market consensus vs a single dissenting model.
RECENT FORM
Ruse (last 5): L Iasi (clay) 6-3 6-1 to Quevedo 1741 (blown out, UNDER-perf);
L Wimbledon 5-7 3-6 to McNally; L Bad Homburg SF to Muchova; W Bad Homburg QF
vs Navarro 1844; W Bad Homburg 1/8 vs Kalinskaya. Grass peak in June (won BH
title, DOM over Noskova 1888) but that is 6+ wks stale and off-surface.
SHAPE: FADING — last two completed events R1 losses, incl. a 6-1/6-3 blowout
by a 1741. Last match 2026-07-14 (~19d ago) on CLAY -> rust + surface transition
onto hard. No recent hard-court results at all.
Stearns (last 5): L Memphis QF 6-1 2-6 6-3 to Kalieva 1676 (hard); W Memphis 1/8
6-1 6-2 vs Prozorova 1742 (DOM over Strong, hard); W Memphis 1/16 7-6 0-6 4-6
vs Stoiana 1500 (GRIND, hard); L Wimbledon; L Eastbourne final.
PATH: 3 matches at Memphis this week on HARD, last 2026-07-31 -> match-sharp,
conditions-grooved. Field was modest (quali-level) so on-surface stats mildly
inflated, but sharpness is real.
SHAPE: STABLE — a clean DOM plus a grind win against a soft field.
FATIGUE (Step 2 calibration)
Ruse: fully rested (0 matches 14d) but rusty (~19d off). No haircut, no penalty.
Stearns: 3 matches / 9 sets / 258min in 7d, last 07-31 (2 days ago). Last match
was a 3-set LOSS two days ago -> the 3-set-hangover haircut (yesterday's WINNERS
only) does NOT apply. Not an extreme spot (no back-to-back-to-back, day off since).
Cumulative load = context only, not an edge. Age 24, baseline recovery.
NARRATIVE
Ruse: won Bad Homburg grass title in June but no letdown window relevant here;
clay->hard transition + long layoff = depressed level, WIDER margin variance.
Stearns: reached Eastbourne final (grass) in June; nothing actionable now.
ELO/ranking: no material divergence (Ruse 67/ELO~48%, Stearns 49/ELO~52%).
MARKET CHOICE
ML: no edge either side. Backing Ruse relies ONLY on the lone ML (61%) which the
qualitative read directly CONTRADICTS (Ruse fading/rusty/off-surface vs a
match-sharp opponent) -> ML is the untrustworthy outlier here, not the market.
Backing Stearns needs ~61%+ for 5% edge at 1.81 (eff 1.77, min 1.86); no model
supports Stearns above ~52% -> no edge.
Totals: line 21.5, model over 48.8% / under 51.2%; both sides negative-edge vs
commission-adjusted prices. Pass.
Handicap: not quoted. AH: not quoted.
alt_markets: handicap none at analysis time (totals + betfair_ml present).
GATES
G1 edge-origin: FAIL — the only numeric model-market gap (ML 61% vs mkt 48% on
Ruse) has NO independent qualitative validation; the path/shape read contradicts
it. Stearns side has no numeric gap at all.
G2 consensus: stake-tier only (lone-ML, contaminated by stale grass form).
G3 fatal-risk: n/a (no margin bet).
VERDICT: PASS. ELO and the exchange agree; the lone dissenting ML overrates Ruse
on stale off-surface grass results while she is fading, rusty and switching
surfaces against a match-sharp hard-court opponent. No validated edge in any market.