TennisEdge's AI model finds no betting value in K. Quevedo vs F. Jones (Targu Mures (Romania) - Qualification on 2026-08-01) — the market is efficient, with F. Jones favoured at 1.73.
Independent estimates of who wins, each from a different method. The blend is what the bot prices against the market.
| Method | K. Quevedo | F. Jones |
|---|---|---|
| Elo ratings-based, surface-weighted |
41.7% | 58.3% |
| Machine learning 29-feature gradient-boosted model |
59.5% | 40.5% |
| Serve / return point-by-point simulation |
56.2% | 43.8% |
| Blend what the bot actually prices off |
41.7% | 58.3% |
| Market implied de-vigged from the opening odds |
45.5% | 54.5% |
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 |
| F. Jones | clay | 1786 | 126–51 | 177 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug. 1, 2026 | Targu Mures (Romania) - Qualification | clay | K. Quevedo | 1 - 0 |
| Sept. 7, 2024 | W50 Saint-Palais-sur-Mer | clay | 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 | 1 - 0 | Aug. 1, 2026 |
| W | A. Rame | 2 - 0 | July 31, 2026 |
| W | L. Ciric Bagaric | 2 - 0 | July 30, 2026 |
| W | C. Paquet | 2 - 1 | July 28, 2026 |
| W | F. Ferro | 2 - 1 | July 26, 2026 |
All Aug. 1, 2026 results & picks →
═══ K. Quevedo (A) vs F. Jones (B) — Targu Mures Qualification SF, clay ═══
MODELS
ELO: A 41.7% / B 58.3% (favors Jones)
ML: A 59.5% (favors Quevedo — LONE OUTLIER)
Market: Betfair A 2.12 / B 1.80 (B ~55.6% raw); book A 2.07 / B 1.73
ELO agrees with market on the winner (Jones). ML is the lone dissenter and
is contradicted by the dominant-form story below → treat ML as the unreliable
break-even model here.
RECENT FORM (last 5)
Quevedo (A, 20, #139): match-sharp, 3 deep at venue.
07-31 QF W Monnet(1585) 7-6 6-3 GRIND
07-29 R16 W Burillo(1500) 7-5 6-1 DOM
07-27 R32 W Fetecau(1500) 6-1 6-3 DOM
07-20 L Kalinina(1819) 5-7 4-6 ; 07-16 L Sherif(1773) 6-3 7-6
Also beat Ruse(1672) 6-3 6-1 DOM 07-14. Shape STABLE, sharp path.
Jones (B, 25, #101): DOMINANT — 2 titles in July, huge streak.
07-31 QF W Rame(1497) 6-1 6-2 DOM
07-30 R16 W Ciric(1409) 7-5 6-3 DOM
07-28 R32 W Paquet(1500) 6-0 1-6 6-0 GRIND
07-26 Palermo FINAL W Ferro(1650) 6-0 4-6 7-6 (title)
07-19 Rome FINAL W Bronzetti(1718) 6-3 6-1 (title). Shape SHARPENING/dominant.
FATIGUE
Jones EXTREME workload: 11 matches/14d, 33 sets, 988 court-min, back_to_back 6,
6 matches in 7 days, played daily. Genuine extreme spot. BUT: won 6-1 6-2
yesterday (2-set win, no extra-set toll), showing zero scoreline fatigue; age
25 baseline recovery. Calibration: market over-prices visible fatigue — the
ELO(58.3)-vs-market(55.6) gap suggests fatigue may already be shaded IN, so
value would be ON Jones if anywhere, not against. Fatigue cannot create an edge.
Quevedo: 4 matches/14d, 358 min, played 2-set win yesterday; age 20 recovers fast.
NARRATIVE
Jones TITLE: Palermo 5d ago (clay) + Rome 12d ago (clay) — live form outweighs.
No first-Final let-down (established Final-winner). No surface transition (both clay).
ELO/ranking: Jones #101 strong-rank + high ELO agree → ELO credible.
MARKET CHOICE
ML A(Quevedo) @2.12: edge exists ONLY from lone ML (11%) — contradicted by ELO
+ market + dominant-form; not a clean numeric edge. min 1.77 met on price but
thesis fails.
ML B(Jones) @1.80: ELO edge only 1.5% vs commission-adj 1.76; min odds 1.80 =
exactly the price → break-even, below 5% bar. PASS.
Totals 21.5: over edge -1.1%, under edge -3.1% → no edge. Handicap model null → skip.
Best available: none clears the bar.
GATES
G1 edge-origin: [FAIL] — no clean model-vs-market edge; Quevedo edge is lone
contradicted ML, Jones edge 1.5% below bar. Only fatigue narrative props A.
G2 consensus: stake-tier note — ELO+market consensus on Jones; ML lone dissent.
G3 fatal-risk: n/a (no margin bet).
VERDICT: PASS. ELO+market agree on Jones; ML is the lone contradicted outlier.
No side clears the 5% executable-edge bar (Jones 1.5% / break-even; Quevedo edge
only from suspect ML). Jones's extreme fatigue is real but shows no scoreline
effect and cannot manufacture an edge (G1). No bet.