TennisEdge's AI model finds no betting value in K. Quevedo vs C. Monnet (Targu Mures (Romania) - Qualification on 2026-07-31) — the market is efficient, with K. Quevedo favoured at 1.17.
Independent estimates of who wins, each from a different method. The blend is what the bot prices against the market.
| Method | K. Quevedo | C. Monnet |
|---|---|---|
| Elo ratings-based, surface-weighted |
70.5% | 29.5% |
| Machine learning 29-feature gradient-boosted model |
74.7% | 25.3% |
| Serve / return point-by-point simulation |
66.2% | 33.8% |
| Blend what the bot actually prices off |
73.1% | 26.9% |
| Market implied de-vigged from the opening odds |
79.4% | 20.6% |
We publish how well these score against the closing market, including where they lose: how accurate are tennis predictions?
| Player | Surface | Elo | Record | Matches |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K. Quevedo | clay | 1748 | 90–49 | 139 |
| C. Monnet | clay | 1577 | 102–107 | 209 |
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. 2, 2026.
K. Quevedo leads 2–0 over 2 meetings. Full record.
| Date | Event | Surface | Winner | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| July 31, 2026 | Targu Mures (Romania) - Qualification | clay | K. Quevedo | 2 - 0 |
| Jan. 3, 2026 | WTA Auckland | hard | K. Quevedo | 2 - 1 |
| L | L. Samson | 1 - 2 | Aug. 2, 2026 |
| W | F. Jones | 1 - 0 | Aug. 1, 2026 |
| W | C. Monnet | 2 - 0 | July 31, 2026 |
| W | I. Burillo Escorihuela | 2 - 0 | July 29, 2026 |
| W | I. Fetecau | 2 - 0 | July 27, 2026 |
| L | K. Quevedo | 2 - 0 | July 31, 2026 |
| W | E. R. Bertea | 0 - 2 | July 29, 2026 |
| W | M. Bulgaru | 0 - 2 | July 28, 2026 |
| L | J. Pieri | 0 - 1 | July 19, 2026 |
| L | B. Krejcikova | 2 - 0 | July 16, 2026 |
All July 31, 2026 results & picks →
K. Quevedo (A) vs C. Monnet (B) — Targu Mures Qualification QF, clay, 2026-07-31
MODELS vs MARKET
ELO A 70.5% | ML A 74.7% | sim A 73.1% -> cluster ~70-75% Quevedo
Book implied A 79.4% | Betfair A 1.18 (~85%), B 4.9
System value_pick B, value_edge 6.25% -> gap sits on the underdog Monnet.
B win-prob estimates: ELO 29.5% / ML 25.3% / sim 26.9%.
Executable B: Betfair 4.9 -> effective 4.705 -> implied 21.25%. Numeric edge ~5.6% (sim) / 8.3% (ELO). min_odds 1.05/0.269 = 3.90 (cleared).
ELO/rank sanity: A rank 139 / B rank 181, ELO-fav agrees with rank -> ELO credible.
RECENT FORM (last 5 each)
Quevedo (A, 20, clay specialist, match-sharp — 2 deep at Targu Mures):
07-29 W Burillo (1500) 7-5 6-1 ; 07-27 W Fetecau (1500) 6-1 6-3 (DOM over weak)
07-20 L Kalinina (1819) 5-7 4-6 (narrow, Strong) ; 07-16 L Sherif (1773) 6-3 7-6 (narrow)
07-14 W Ruse (1672) 6-3 6-1 (DOM over Strong).
Shape: SHARPENING — widening margins vs weak field, only loses to 1770+ opp.
Monnet (B, 24, match-sharp — 2 deep at Targu Mures):
07-29 W Bertea (1500) TB+7-5 (GRIND) ; 07-28 W Bulgaru (1500) 6-1 6-3 (grindy path)
07-19 L Pieri (1420) 3-6 1-3 (blown out by a WEAK opp) ; 07-16 L Krejcikova 6-0 6-2
07-14 W Masarova 3-set TB.
Shape: FADING — heavy loss to a 1420, ugly wins over weak fields.
FATIGUE (Step 2)
Both played 07-29, both 2-set WINS (no 3-set hangover haircut; ~neutral). A 358min/14d vs B 298min — context only, no extreme spot. back_to_back A 0 / B 1. Roughly equal. A age 20 recovers fast anyway. No fatigue edge either way.
NARRATIVE
No first-Final let-down in window. Both clay, no surface transition. Venue: both 2 matches deep this week (both match-sharp — cancels). No motivation signal in data.
GATES
G1 edge-origin: PASS — 5.6% numeric B edge exists pre-narrative from sim-vs-market.
G2 consensus: stake-tier only (would be lone/split for the dog); not a blocker.
G3 fatal-risk: n/a (ML; no margin bet).
VERDICT: PASS. The numeric edge is on the underdog Monnet, but the qualitative read CONTRADICTS backing B rather than validating it: Monnet is FADING (blown out by a 1420, grindy wins over 1500s) while Quevedo is SHARPENING on clay, match-sharp and deep in event after event. The models' 27% for Monnet is if anything generous; the "value on B" is a model artifact (ELO/ML underrating Quevedo's clay sharpness), not a real edge. A bet requires BOTH model-market disagreement AND independent qualitative validation — the qualitative side fails. No value on A at 1.18 either (edge negative). PASS.